Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKERin the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Government Powers (Limitations) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (Motions to sit in private),
That the House sit in private.—[Mr. Dismore]

The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 30.

Division No. 154]
[9.34 am


AYES


Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Andrew Dismore and



Mr. Ian Stewart.





NOES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Blunt, Crispin
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Malins, Humfrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
 Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas



Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Tom Levitt and


Lansley, Andrew
Mrs. Helen Brinton.

It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Orders of the Day — Wild Mammals (Hunting With Dogs) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on the fact that, before the opening speech for the Bill that was drawn sixth in the private Members' ballot could be made, those who wished to move on to a Bill that was lower down the order deployed the tactic of a motion to meet in secret. Does that not constitute a massive abuse of the process of the House, and has not a very serious Bill, which took much time to draft, been deliberately moved down the list so that one man's political ambitions may be advanced by the use of this House?

Madam Speaker: I do, of course, take these matters very seriously. The situation that we have been through today is not new; I remember being in the Chair when it was deployed on other occasions. I must tell all Members who are responsible for Bills that it is for them to see that sufficient of their supporters are present at the start of the debate.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I make it clear that I had no idea—[Laughter.] I assume that the strangest things can happen in this place, so I made certain that I was in my office by 9.10 am but, far from there having been what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) called a plot to advance one man's ambition, as I was not told about it, perhaps some people thought that it might be embarrassing if I had not been here in time to move the motion for Second Reading.
The Bill should be viewed in the context of the debate that has gone on for m1ore than a decade, during which successive private Members' Bills have been introduced. I make it clear at the start that I have seen myself simply as a vehicle to enable the more than 411 Members of the House who, a few years ago, voted for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my honourable colleague, the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), to bring back what is, effectively is the same Bill.
I believe that what happened was an appalling abuse of the basic democratic rights of people expressed at the ballot box, where many people went at the last general election clearly determined to vote for candidates who would bring an end to the barbaric practice of hunting with hounds. They elected people to do so but then saw 411 Members of the House of Commons—the largest majority ever for a contested private Member's Bill, expressing the will of the electorate and the House—thwarted by all the procedural manoeuverings.
I regretted at the time that the Government did not find Government time to help the previous Bill go forward. It was sad that, in the intervening years, no one prepared to introduce such a Bill came in the top six in the ballot, and if one of my colleagues who had come higher on the list had introduced one, I should have been happy to proceed with a different Bill. However, in the negotiations that


took place among the Labour Members who had been successful in the ballot, it fell to me to bring this Bill back to the House.
It is virtually the same Bill as the one that we debated previously. We have made the necessary textual amendments to take account of the changes relating to the constitutional position of Scotland. We have not taken any similar measures relating to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, because it changes so frequently. However, that is a matter that could be taken on board if the Northern Ireland Assembly ever comes fully into being again.
I shall be brief, because I know that many Members wish to raise points, including points of objection.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations about his choice of private Member's Bill. Does he agree that the choice of a Bill that bears little relevance to his constituency or to London is entirely in keeping with his past contributions to the House? I am reliably informed that 61.6 per cent. of his contributions over 12 years to December last year were on the subjects of Northern Ireland, defence, and chemical, biological or atomic weaponry, but that only 6.7 per cent.—barely one tenth of the previous figure—related to London.

Mr. Livingstone: In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to see me widening my sphere of interest. In reality, in my 13 years in the House, I have voted for every measure to protect animal welfare and I have supported every early-day motion calling for a ban on hunting. I have always been opposed to hunting and, had another Member been happy to introduce this Bill, I would have gone ahead with my second choice, which would have been a Bill to extend the rights of carers—my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has proceeded with that. However, given the weight of opinion in the House that is behind this Bill, I thought it right to introduce it.
I deliberately left the Bill as late in the private Members' Bills cycle as possible, because I know that the Government are awaiting the decision of the Burns inquiry, which is proceeding apace. It is interesting that, as the Burns inquiry has come into being, the Countryside Alliance and those who wish to retain hunting have constantly scaled down their alarming figures about job losses. In particular, the report from Sean Rickard, the former chief economist of the National Farmers Union who is now at the Cranfield school of management, contains evidence that blows a hole in the argument of those who depict a ban on hunting as some sort of disaster that will afflict rural areas and the countryside.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the construction of the figures is difficult to argue in the abstract? However, the fact is that were hunting to be banned, there would be very significant job losses. I am sure that he would not want that. Although in some rural areas there are job opportunities, in others—and particularly those where

hunting is strongest—there are very few. The hon. Gentleman cannot just dismiss the issue of employment on the basis of an argument between two people.

Mr. Livingstone: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not currently able to speak for the Government. However, I do not have the slightest doubt that the Government of Britain would not stand by if there were job losses. They would introduce programmes to make certain that the problem was dealt with, and new work would be created. However, the argument on job losses sounds awfully like the debate that went on about pigeon shooting until world war one. Pigeons were released to be shot out of the sky and tales of woe foretold the collapse of the rural economy if live pigeon shooting were to be banned and replaced by clay pigeon shooting. All those arguments turned out to be wrong; clay pigeon shooting became an industry that created more work and enriched the countryside.
Equally, the Labour party—which I hope, one day, to be back in—now represents more rural areas than the Conservative party. The idea that this Government would neglect rural interests flies in the face of the facts.
I believe genuinely that if we ban hunting mammals with hounds—foxes, deer and—

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is a well known London Member. Does he think it right for urban Members to impose their own will and political opinions on the countryside? If he thinks that there may be some logic in that argument, will he, at least, accept that, even if he gets his way and some form of legislation is passed, there should be a referendum, so that local people in counties such as Lincolnshire can decide whether they want to continue with hunting? Is that not at least an arguable point?

Mr. Livingstone: That sounds awfully like another West Lothian question being brought into play. The whole House of Commons has, across all parties, established over the past 150 years an increasing concern to protect animal welfare, whether for farm animals, wild animals or pets. Cruelty that was once taken to be acceptable has gradually been driven out of British society. Hunting with dogs is the most obvious remaining example that the House immediately needs to tackle. There are issues of factory farming, and the Government have made a start on them.
However, one part of the country cannot opt out and carry on with a practice that a majority of people in this country believe to be an act of unnecessary cruelty. If the hon. Gentleman examines the opinion polls, he will see that there is not just an overwhelming majority in city areas in favour of banning hunting with dogs. The same is true of rural areas. If we extract the 7 per cent. of Britain that is most rural—where hunting is a much more predominant activity than anywhere else—there is still a majority among the people who live in those areas in favour of banning hunting. An Unanimity across Britain unites all classes and all political creeds.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a hunt off? There are four hunts in my rural constituency. Does he realise that he is attacking the issue from the narrow viewpoint of animal welfare?


As well as being a great source of income, hunting brings enormous pleasure to those living in the countryside. His Bill, if it were to be successful, would deprive those people.

Mr. Livingstone: I immediately confess that I will always put animal welfare ahead of human pleasure. There is a balance to be struck. People will carry on eating meat—I still eat meat—but I believe that farming should be as humane as possible. Acts of unnecessary cruelty are not acceptable.
I know the complaint has been made that this is a class issue. A detailed examination of the opinion polls, shows that the overwhelming majority have no interest in class on this issue; perhaps one in 20 may be motivated on that basis. The overwhelming reason given by people in towns and rural areas and by people who might normally vote Conservative or normally vote Labour is that they oppose cruelty to animals. That is the only issue that we face.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: I shall start with the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Benches.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: If it could be shown that dispatching a fox with dogs is less cruel than shooting, would the hon. Gentleman amend his Bill in any way?

Mr. Livingstone: Certainly not. I recently went to the Waterloo cup, a hare-coursing event, because I was told by my friends in the animal welfare movement, who have campaigned for so long on the issue, that there would be an immediate complaint, if I ever got to introduce the Bill, that I had not been to see a hunt. I am glad to say that nine out of 10 hares got away that day. I saw the hares that did not. I do not believe that it is right, in this day and age, to release a hare in a great open field—not on an upward slope where it would have a natural advantage because of its bodily constitution—and then to release dogs. When the dogs get it, they pull at either end until it is dead. I found the excited cry that went up sickening.
I have not the slightest doubt that if we ban hunting with hounds, we will see a revival of the rural economy. We should remove this divisive, unpleasant issue and extend drag-hunting so that people do not feel that they are caught up in controversy and unpleasantness.
Once this issue is resolved, we will see an increase in countryside sports, including more people riding and a growth in drag-hunting, which can be organised safely. We will not then have the horror of a hunt going across a railway line and the hounds being electrocuted. The accidents and miseries attendant on hunting with hounds can be dealt with.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I want to pick up on the point that 61 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House have been on security issues. The 200,000 or more people who take part in hunting know that his animal welfare arguments are hooey. Ironically, if hunting is banned, foxes, horses, hounds and everyone involved in the sport will be worse off, and more than 200,000 law-abiding people will be made into criminals. What effect does he think that will have in the countryside?
Although a majority of the population might oppose hunting, I doubt whether a majority want it to be banned because they know how illiberal a measure that is, and most of our citizens probably appreciate that although they might instinctively be opposed to hunting, they do not know much about it.

Mr. Livingstone: I am sure that exactly the same arguments were used when we banned the shooting of live pigeons and when bear baiting and bull baiting came to an end. There is much alarmist rhetoric from those who want to retain hunting with hounds, but as each new study emerges, the arguments are knocked away.
I want to focus on the debate that is taking place in the Burns inquiry. We have heard lies about many thousands of jobs being lost and the rural economy collapsing. I do not ask anyone to believe what I might say about that, but when the chief economist of the National Farmers Union, who is now working for one of the most respected management schools in Britain, uses his wealth of experience in these matters to consider the issue and says that there will be virtually no job losses, that carries a lot more weight than the alarmist rhetoric that we hear from Conservative Members.

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Mr. Livingstone: Ten minutes ago, I was about to make a point that I never returned to, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have made it.
I said earlier that I had taken the last possible date on which to introduce the Bill because I know that the Government are concerned about the rural economy and want to be certain that there will not be job losses, and they established the Burns inquiry to consider those issues. They expect it to report at the end of May or in early June, so there was no point in introducing a Bill earlier and then having a long delay. I hope that if we can give the Bill a Second Reading today, the Burns report will be published while the Bill is in Committee.
I have seen the press stories that the Government are thinking of offering the House a multiple choice question, as we had with Sunday trading. I should be more than happy to co-operate with the Government, despite my temporary suspension, to amend the Bill in Committee to take on board the form of voting procedure that the Government want to put before the House. I assure the Government Whips that I will co-operate in every way to make certain that the Government can put a multiple choice question to the House if they want to. We will take the time in Committee to allow the Burns report to be published.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 11,400 people are directly employed by hunts and would therefore lose their jobs, in addition to 4,851, at the most recent count, who are indirectly employed by hunts? If his answer is that the 11,400 would be employed by drag-hunts, does he not realise that there would be far fewer drag-hunts, so by definition it would not be possible for all those people to be employed?

Mr. Livingstone: Once again, those figures are contested by others who are much less partisan.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the hon. Gentleman has long championed the causes of minorities


and arguably made his name thereby, in what circumstances does he concede that individual rights can and should take precedence over crude majoritarianism?

Mr. Livingstone: I am happy to deal with that point. My view is that, in a democratic society, individuals should be free to do anything that does not bring harm to another, so I sometimes have great reservations about the nannying instincts of my dear friend the Home Secretary. However, another set of rights is involved.
I believe that animals have the right not to be torn apart on a grand scale. Some people outside the House think that only the occasional hunt takes place. There are great arguments about scale, but the highest estimates are that 100,000 foxes, deer and hares are torn apart by dogs every year. That is totally unnecessary cruelty and suffering on a scale that is rejected by the vast majority of the British people.
I am proud today to be able to build on the work of colleagues who introduced earlier Bills on the subject, and once again to give the vast majority of hon. Members the right to ban the unacceptable face of cruelty and to end the appalling abuse of our responsibility to protect the life that shares these islands with us.
I have foxes in my garden, and it has been a source of amusement to the media that one of them bit off the head of one of my tortoises. I have no illusions about foxes: they are wild animals and they themselves hunt, but we are not wild animals and we can make a conscious choice about the degree of cruelty and pain that we impose on other human beings and on the wildlife in these islands. Having watched those foxes night after night and seen that they are intelligent and genuinely tender to each other, I do not believe that they are any different from the pet dogs that millions of people in this country keep and cherish. We have a duty to protect wild animals in exactly the same way that we protect our domestic pets.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to begin, as I suspect many other right hon. and hon. Members will want to begin, by expressing my great concern about the circumstances in which the debate has occurred.
Let us be clear about the fact that we had for discussion this morning a very important Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), which is designed to limit the power of the Government to act in a way that many hon. Members and people outside the House believe to be unconscionable. We are deeply concerned, for example, about the number of special advisers who are being appointed. We are deeply concerned about the politicisation of the civil service.

Miss McIntosh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: In a moment.
We are deeply concerned about the spin that is happening. We are unhappy about the lack of parliamentary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes too far

down that road, I remind him that we are not now debating the earlier Bill; he must direct his remarks to the Bill that is immediately before the House.

Mr. Hogg: That is of course true. My point is that the first Bill deals with important constitutional questions, and we find that we are suddenly prevented from debating it so as to bring us on to this Bill. One suspicion may be that the Government did not want to hear the discussion on the first Bill. I, for one, regard that as unconscionable.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: In a moment.
We have seen an important constitutional debate truncated by a device.

Mr. Stewart: On that point—

Mr. Hogg: In a moment.
The device was that the House should go into private session. No one on the Government Benches, or very few, voted against what most people would consider a denial of democracy. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he voted in the Division. He did not. We find, by implication, that Government Members supported a Division to put the House into private session. That is a scandal and a contrivance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what was done this morning was strictly within the rules of the House. I must ask him now to direct his remarks—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must direct his remarks towards the Bill that is before the House now.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I have been told not to proceed on the point, so I will not.
I move on to my second point, which is also procedural, but does not touch on the first point. The Government have established a Committee under the noble Lord Burns.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a normal courtesy that after an hon. Member makes a speech, he remains in the Chamber for the speech of the following speaker? Where is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? He has vanished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] That is discourteous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is the convention of the House that when one has made a speech to the House, one should stay and hear at least the response from the other side.

Mr. Hogg: I shall come to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in a moment.
The Government have established a Committee under the noble Lord Burns, who is investigating many of the consequences associated with this Bill. The Government presumably believed that the Committee's report would be material to this discussion, yet they have allowed the debate to go forward, although they could have stopped it, without having the benefit of the view of the noble Lord Burns. That is a contempt of the Committee that they established. The only conclusion can be that the Government are displaying hypocrisy of an extraordinary kind.
My third point, on the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) drew attention, is that the debate was prompted by the hon. Member for Brent, East in order to further his personal political ambitions. It is a scandal that the freedoms and liberties of my constituents should be pushed aside by an hon. Member in order to further his own political ambitions, yet he does not have the courtesy to stay and listen to the arguments.
The position is worse than that. We are debating criminal law, the rights of citizens and people's employment, and how many hon. Members are in the Chamber to listen to the debate? Virtually none, and the great majority of those who are present are on the Conservative Benches.
The hon. Member for Brent, East skulks in. I am sorry that he was not present when I had the opportunity to address my remarks to him.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, no, I shall give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill which restricts civil liberties and imposes criminal sanctions for his personal political reasons. That is a scandal, and it is a scandal that the House should be debating the matter when there is hardly anyone here, and only on the Conservative Benches at that. We are speaking of people's liberties, rights, the criminal law and offences, and there are hardly any hon. Members present to defend the interests of minorities. That is a scandal.

Mr. Blunt: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way; I hesitate to intervene on him while he is making such a passionate contribution. As he said, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has just skulked back in, having presumably gone out to speak to the media immediately after he sat down, and not observing the customary courtesies of the House. If by some mischance the Bill ended up in Committee, how could the hon. Gentleman be expected to guide the Bill through Committee, with all the other burdens that there will be on his time over the next few months?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We know, too, that hon. Members who introduce a private Member's Bill which gets a Second Reading have the opportunity to choose the members of the Committee. Because there are so few hon. Members on the Government Benches, the Committee will be packed by hon. Members who have not heard the debate. That, too, is a scandal.
I have sat through many debates on fox hunting, and I have always adopted one position, which I shall elaborate at some length, but I have never attended a debate that was so poorly attended by those who wished to abolish fox hunting. That seems to show either a contempt of Parliament, or a disregard for the rights and liberties of our constituents, which is deeply shameful.

Mr. David Taylor: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is bogus to suggest that the number of hon. Members on the Government Benches is low, so the Bill is not worthy of support? In fact, there are equal numbers of hon. Members on the Government Benches and on the Conservative Benches. Is not the point entirely bogus?

Mr. Hogg: No, it is not. The hon. Member for Brent, East wants to impose on my constituents the burdens of the criminal law. He wants to make what is currently a lawful activity an unlawful activity. It is a scandal to see that process happening with, at most, 10 hon. Members on the Government Benches.

Mr. Gray: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend in his full flow, but the intervention from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was incorrect. There are 10 hon. Members on the Government Benches, and 14 on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Hogg: And, of course, one must take into account the fact that we are smaller in number.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Is he familiar with the celebrated text by Talmon entitled "The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy", which I had the pleasure of studying as an undergraduate? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had nothing in the way of a cogent argument to offer, and relied exclusively on vulgar majoritarianism, the findings of opinion polls and the research studies of focus groups? Should we not rather follow the advice of Walter Lipman, that in a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men; it administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs?

Mr. Hogg: I do, indeed. I shall refer in a moment to minority rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has spelled out the arguments precisely and crisply, and I know that I shall not be able to improve upon them, but I intend to try.
I began by protesting at what has been going on. I now come to the merits of the Bill or, as I see it, their complete absence. I have some experience in the matter, in the sense that for all my life I have been a shooter. I have also spent quite a lot of time watching, and very occasionally participating in, fishing. I have also seen my wife fish, which is an experience—for the fish.
Although I do not ride to hounds, I have had the opportunity on many occasions of supporting fox hunting and welcoming the participants to my house. I was very pleased that last November we held a meet at my house. I have been out with the foxhounds on many occasions.


In my younger and more athletic days, I was a keen beagler, and in my even more athletic days, I have also been the quarry for the draghounds. That was at Oxford. I was not a very rapid drag, but none the less, I was the quarry for the draghounds. I can tell the House that what we had to pull was extremely disgusting. The point is that there is no inherent difference between those country pastimes. They are intrinsically the same. Shooting and fishing probably involve more pain and less justification than fox hunting. To try to draw a moral distinction between those who go fox hunting and those who go shooting or fishing is absurd.
When we last debated fox hunting, I, like many other hon. Members, drew attention to the many learned reports that tackled pain in fish. Fish feel pain; at least, that is what the evidence suggests. Once one concludes that, it is nonsense to distinguish between angling, shooting and fox hunting.
I have shot many times, and I enjoyed it. However, we all know that many wounded birds get away and doubtless die afterwards. If we seriously claim that it is wrong to hunt foxes with hounds, we must outlaw the other activities as well. That cannot be right. As the hon. Member for Brent, East and the Labour party do not suggest that, we face deep hypocrisy.
That hypocrisy is driven by the fact that many Labour Members fish. There is therefore a personal interest at stake. Secondly, Labour Members do not on the whole represent rural areas, but urban and suburban areas where there are anglers aplenty, I am glad to say. They are therefore fearful to touch the anglers. There is deep hypocrisy at the heart of the Bill.
I am a proud supporter of country sports. I believe that they are right and that they should continue. I will do my utmost to ensure that they remain lawful.

Mr. Öpik: Despite the fact that the moral inconsistency was repeatedly brought up during discussions on a previous private Member's Bill, the issue was never addressed consistently in the House or in Committee.

Mr. Hogg: It cannot be addressed because there is no answer. It is similar to the West Lothian question: there is no answer other than a federal state. When Labour Members cannot provide an answer, they pretend that there is no problem.
We have witnessed more examples of extraordinary pretence. Many of us remember the comments of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now Prime Minister and, again, not in his place. The last time such a Bill made an appearance, he claimed it had been stopped in the other place. He said something that was manifestly untrue, not once, not twice, but three times, on television and elsewhere. He repeated it long after he had been corrected. The House is entitled to say that, on fox hunting, there has been a lamentable refusal by the Labour party to face truth and fact.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Prime Minister's repeated errors on the subject, and his incorrect claim that the House of Lords thwarted previous attempts to ban hunting. In view of the requirements of the ministerial code, does not my right

hon. and learned Friend believe that it is a scandal that the Prime Minister is not here today to correct his previous errors?

Mr. Hogg: There is no chance of his correcting them. They have been put to him on previous occasions and he has never apologised. He has mumbled, waffled, sidestepped and made comments that are difficult to reconcile with facts. The Prime Minister should correct his errors, but he will not. The House and my constituents will note that.
I shall move from the central hypocrisy—that my right hon. and hon. Friends will develop that theme, because it is at the heart of the Bill—ven more important subject: the nature of a democratic society. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham presented the arguments in favour of minority rights more crisply and succinctly than I could. I said that perhaps I should not try to improve on them, and then implied that I would have a go.
Minority rights are at the heart of any democratic society. If an individual can do only what the majority of the day wants him or her to do, that is not democracy, but a form of autocracy. Some hon. Members may remember the Dimbleby lecture given by my right hon. and noble kinsman Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. It dealt with elected dictatorship. When the House of Commons makes a decision, it is—subject to consideration of several rights, which are now being enshrined in the European conventions—the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will not like the parenthesis. What the House of Commons decides is law; what the Government decide is law, provided that they hold a majority in that House.
One of the principal responsibilities of Members of Parliament is to defend the minority rights of individuals. I do not claim to have many political purposes now; I am a man who left the Front Bench and may never return to it. However, during the remainder of my political life, I intend to try to ensure justice, civil rights and freedom under the law, and to prevent freedoms and rights that I believe to be important from being encroached upon by an ignorant majority. I shall defend that position, whatever the pressure or criticism, because it is my duty.
There are many aspects of society that one may believe are distasteful or wrong. Let us consider abortion. I do not believe that abortion is a great sin; however, I recognise that many people have the opposite view, and I can well understand the views of those who believe that it is a great sin. However, whatever their feelings, they should accept that it is a matter for personal conscience and not the criminal law.
Let us consider another example, which is not the same, but not dissimilar: boxing. I dislike boxing. I believe that it is brutal and brutalising; that it does a great deal of harm to individuals, arouses bloodlust and takes advantage of vulnerable people. However, I would not ban it. Individuals should have free choice; that is the nature of society.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman legalise dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting or badger baiting?

Mr. Hogg: I shall consider fox hunting in detail shortly. The. idea that there is a parallel between bear baiting and fox hunting is so absurd that it shows that the hon. Gentleman has no clue about either practice.
I shall continue to develop my point about freedom under the law. I do not like obscenity, and I find blasphemy distasteful. People send me items through the post, usually from Holland, which are deeply unattractive. I can recognise them now; they are addressed, rather surprisingly, to Mr. Hogg Sarah Carpenter—a combination of my name and my wife's. I pop them into a wastepaper bin. However, I do not believe that disgusting items of that nature should generally be subject to the criminal law. It is different if they affect children, but, in general, they should not be subject to the criminal law.
If freedom is to mean anything, it includes the option of doing what is unworthy as well as worthy. That is not to say that country sports are unworthy—I believe them to be worthy—but it defines something about society that we must understand. Free society implies choice. Free will implies choice. The traditions of Christianity imply choice. If we do not have choice we cannot have sin, or at least it is not easy to have sin without choice.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman include in the list of activities with which he is about to regale the House those that are cruel, degrading and pointless? In other words, no matter what the activity, would he endorse and support it as he believes that minorities deserve to be protected?

Mr. Hogg: The presumption always is that minorities need to be protected. It is only a presumption—that I conceded—but those who argue against it consequently have to develop an overwhelming case. Therefore, that presumption is disapplied to cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting because of the nature of those activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman holds up his hand in what I suppose he regards as an appealing manner. I can tell him that it is not appealing, but I shall answer his question.
I regard dog fighting and bear baiting as thoroughly disagreeable, but were the hon. Gentleman to ask himself what is the inherent difference between bear baiting and playing a fish he might encounter some difficulty. Those of us who have played a fish, as I have, or, more important still, those who have seen my wife play a fish, will recognise—once they accept that a degree of cruelty is involved, or at least that fish feel pain—that making that distinction is difficult, yet we all defend fishing.

Mr. David Maclean: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would care to ask Labour Members what is the distinction between a fox in respect of clause 1 and rabbits and rodents in respect of clause 2. The Bill permits the hunting of rabbits and rodents, presumably because they are not regarded as being so cuddly as foxes.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right, and his point goes not to one question, but to two. The first is that the Bill contains an inherent hypocrisy, for the reasons that we have already explored, and the second is that there is basic inconsistency in the drafting, which makes us realise at once that civil rights are being removed in a cavalier fashion. I say that that is astounding in this House.
My point is that there are many activities in society of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may disapprove, although I know that you are a broadminded man.

However, you would not wish to make them criminal. I, who am an even more broadminded man—through long experience, you, sir, know that to be true—also disapprove of many things, but I do not wish to make them criminal. The defence of human rights is one of the important matters on which the House must focus.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way because he is making a powerful point. Have I previously told him that I was once roundly attacked by a distinguished retired major in my constituency, Major Jeremy White, on the ground that I did not practise the sport of hunting? In reply to that distinguished gentleman, I assured him that I had no intention whatever of hunting at any stage in my life, but that I would vigorously and permanently defend his right to engage in the pursuit.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point and is absolutely right. He could gain great kudos by becoming the drag-hunt quarry and I am sure that the major in question would be delighted to chase him.
May I develop the question of freedom a little further? I think that I had the pleasure of seeing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either in the Chair or in the Chamber—perhaps up there in the Box—when we debated terrorism. You will remember that we were discussing its definition and the classes of individual who fell within it. You may also remember that I asserted liberty. One of the arguments that I advanced gained considerable sympathy from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Hunt saboteurs are a group of which I profoundly disapprove. Their activities are usually criminal and almost always offensive, but I do not want them to be made terrorists. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham nodding his assent. I believe that he was in the Chamber when we discussed that important question. Conservative Members, who are more numerous than those on the other side when civil liberties are being discussed, defended those of whom they thoroughly disapprove on the ground that although they are criminal they are not terrorist. That is the point. We are consistent in the matter and it is important for the House to recognise that.
Before I move from the argument about freedom to other important issues, I emphasise that freedom is at the heart of my case. I have never been fox hunting, but I champion liberty. That is the key argument, but others cannot be ignored. Indeed, Lord Burns is examining them at present. No doubt the debate among those on the Labour Benches would have been more informed had his report been published. Owing to the Government's connivance at the shabby trick—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks carefully, but it would be easier for me to do so if he addressed the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I remember that I addressed you rather personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to continue that practice, if that is more convenient.
I turn from the general principles to detailed consideration on which we must reflect. Nobody knows how many jobs will be lost. There are various estimates,


but we know that some will go. The figure is bound to run to thousands—whether 16,000 or 5,000 I do not know—but I ask myself why on earth anybody should lose a job to indulge the political ambition of the hon. Member for Brent, East, who keeps newts in a tank.

Mr. David Taylor: That argument was effectively demolished by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in her memorable speech in the Second Reading debate in November 1997. She said that it did not hold water to the extent that we do not criticise those who seek improved education and improved health because those improvements bring unemployment to doctors and teachers or, in relation to crime, to police officers. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument bogus?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald on many things, but I have made it plain over many years, to her in person, that I do not agree with her on this matter. I do not agree with her conclusions or with many of her arguments. I have said so in public, I have said so in private and I shall never change my mind. I think that she is wrong.
I was dealing with the question of employment or, more particularly, unemployment. It is perfectly true that nobody knows the exact number who will be made unemployed if the Bill passes through the House to indulge an hon. Member who keeps newts in a tank. I do not suppose that the newts like that particularly and I do not remember many people railing on behalf of newts, certainly not the hon. Member for Brent, East.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Ah! The newt fancier.

Mr. Livingstone: I agree with that point, which is why, with my own loving hands, I built a 60 ft pond in the garden for them to swim in, in freedom and safety.

Mr. Hogg: Before that, the newts must have been kept in a smaller tank. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman would not have needed a bigger tank. We find that there is a degree of hypocrisy in the argument that is being advanced. That does not surprise me.
I return to the chief point, which concerns employment. I have made my point three times now: we do not know how many people will lose their jobs, but quite a number will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in your constituency, too.
It is artificial to debate how many jobs would be lost. We only have to face the fact that some would be lost. My bet is that thousands would be, but I cannot prove it. Kennel men and huntsmen would lose their jobs immediately. The turnover of my local shops that sell riding equipment would be reduced. Those who shoe my horses would have fewer horses to shoe. Those who repair my saddles from time to time would have fewer saddles to repair. There would not be such a demand for the services of those who repair riding kit. Those who provide hospitality in the pubs, would find that their hospitality was not required. Those who hire out horses would also

be affected. We do not know how many people would lose their jobs, but we are entitled to say that they would be numerous.
Even if they were not numerous, why in God's name should they lose their jobs at all? That is at the heart of the matter. Labour Members wax vigorous when it comes to employment, unless it is to indulge their social and political preconceptions. The nature of freedom is that we defend everyone even if we disapprove of their activities. It is a scandal that Labour Members are so cavalier about unemployment, which will certainly accrue as a result of this measure.

Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British Racing Board has forecast that there would be not only large jobs losses in other industries, but highly detrimental consequences for national hunt racing, a loss of skills, loss of breeding and loss of the bold riding style that we have in this country? There would be serious detrimental effects for horse racing generally.

Mr. Hogg: I have no doubt of that. I do not have my right hon. Friend's experience of high-level riding. My wife and I ride out each weekend on rather modest horses: they do not have overmuch to do with the breeding associated with fox hunting. I have no doubt that the horse industry's relationship with hunting would be damaged were we to pass the Bill.
Employment matters. The cavalier approach adopted by Labour Members is deeply offensive. I know you have been concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been ignoring you, so I want to say something to you personally. I had the pleasure and privilege of welcoming to my house last November the Blankney hounds. We had the hunt meet at my house. There were 100 people gathered outside my house for the hunt, of whom a great majority were foot followers.

Mr. Bob Russell: Michael Foot.

Mr. Hogg: Not Michael Foot—they were foot followers. I am glad to say that they came from a wide range of backgrounds and with various interests and pastimes. It is important that hon. Members ask themselves whether those people, who are like us in every respect, should be made criminal for participating in a sport which is important for them and is wholly lawful. One has only to consider the kind of people who were there—honest, honourable citizens—to realise that to suggest that their activity should be made criminal is an outrage. It is a denial of freedom so basic that it is a disgrace to this House that it should be debated in this manner.
There is another way in which one can come to the same conclusion. There is no intrinsic difference between angling and fox hunting. I regularly walk my dog by the Trent river. Many fathers and sons come out of big cities—in this case Lincoln—to fish. Should the activity that they pursue on a Sunday afternoon be made criminal? The proposition is repellant. Why on earth should what they do be made criminal? What is the difference between what they do and what the people who attended my house last November do? There is no difference, except of course that Labour Members perceive a political advantage in doing what they are doing today—it is hypocrisy and dishonesty


writ large. [Interruption.] Did I hear that someone wanted me to give way? I am sorry, I am a bit deaf. No, they did not, which is probably a good thing.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Ian Stewart: rose—

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Ah, I thought so.

Mr. David Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing that the urban masses are trying to impose their philosophy on those who live in rural areas, and that that is a disgrace. Is he interested in the fact that repeated surveys have shown that the substantial majority of people who live in rural areas want an end to the barbaric practice of fox hunting? This is not an urban versus rural issue.

Mr. Hogg: There we have the authentic voice of elected dictatorship: the majority want something to be done, so it should be done. The majority want capital punishment. I have always resisted that—no, that is not true, I have voted for capital punishment in the past, but I will not do so again. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not support capital punishment, but if he were to take samples in his constituency he would find a majority in favour.
I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman with a beard, who is not looking at me at the moment. You, Sir. [Laughter.] He does not want to intervene.

Mr. Ian Stewart: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Ah, he does.

Mr. Stewart: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my eyes had glazed over as I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prattle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented an argument about democracy. Let it be recorded that his intention is to spew forth spurious and specious prattle to prevent Labour Members voting in favour of this good Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that one could call that a reasoned intervention. I give way to the hon. Gentleman who I think wanted to make a more reasoned intervention.

Mr. Miller: One of my first qualifications was a certificate in horse management. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his argument is specious. Is he really saying that because all of us drive cars there should not be criminal offences associated with that activity? People who ride horses usually conduct themselves lawfully, but why should there not be criminal offences associated with activities that are done on horseback?

Mr. Hogg: No doubt some activities that can be done on horseback should be made criminal, but they do not include fox hunting. I am perfectly willing to contemplate that if a person rides a horse when terribly drunk and

causes a road accident, he is committing a criminal offence, but that is different in kind. The hon. Gentleman should restrict his enthusiasm.
I was discussing employment, and a suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Brent, East. Where is he? Talking to the press no doubt. His duty is to be in the Chamber when his Bill is being discussed, but he is not here. He suggested that drag-hunting could be a substitute, and that would address the employment issue. I speak with some authority, because when I was at Oxford I was the quarry for the Bullingdon drag-hunt—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) used to ride with them. I know quite a lot about drag-hunting, as I did it for three years.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I have always looked up to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was the master of the Oxford drag hunt, and I think that he would have made a distinguished quarry. The difference between fox hunting and drag-hunting is very important and germane to the debate.

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. Drag-hunting is a perfectly good and viable sport in itself, and gives great pleasure. However, it is not an alternative for many people who go fox hunting. Farmers who are willing to allow the foxhounds to cross their ground do so largely because the hounds kill foxes. They would not allow the draghounds over their land. You know a lot about rural matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hounds can damage land. Gates must be opened, fences adjusted and so forth. Quite a lot of trouble is involved in allowing hounds to go over land, and in general farmers will only allow it to happen in connection with fox hunting. They will not do it in connection with drag-hunting.
Again, I speak with authority, because I am well aware of the thoughts of the farmers among whom I live. Foxhounds run over the park in which my house is set. Unfortunately, I do not own the park. Hounds involved in drag-hunting would not be allowed to do that.

Mr. Tredinnick: In the case of the Oxford university draghounds, there was always a problem with persuading local farmers, apart from a few who were used to regular meets, to allow the hounds to run over their land. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, broadly speaking farmers want to support an organisation, namely fox hunting, that exists for their benefit—to reduce the fox population, thereby protecting their livestock.

Mr. Hogg: That is absolutely true. I do not think that there is any serious dispute about it. No one who lives in the country can suppose for a moment that my hon. Friend is other than wholly right.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right about drag-hunting. As a champion of individual liberties and choi7ce, he will know that, although it can be great fun in its way, drag-hunting accounts for only about 4 per cent. of meets in any one year. A very small proportion of people choose to engage in it. if it were as much fun as it is cracked up to be, many more people would take part in it.
Not only do farmers have a vested interest in hunting, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—some do not, of course, but many do—but fox hunting is a much bigger operation, so the argument about drag-hunting is not germane to the debate.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is probably right. I have not ridden to hounds, but I imagine that the unpredictability involved in fox hunting makes it much more exciting and attractive than drag-hunting, which involves predictability. In this instance I do not speak with a great deal of authority, but I suspect that those who enjoy fox hunting would not necessarily gain anything like the same pleasure from drag-hunting.

Mr. Tredinnick: As my right hon. and learned Friend will recall, having chased across the countryside as a student at Oxford, in drag-hunting someone lays a line across country and hounds then follow it. They tend to follow the dragline much faster than they would ever follow the scent of a fox, because foxes are inclined to stop and check. Drag-hunts tend to follow a line of perhaps 30 or 40 jumps that have already been prepared: drag-hunting is much more akin to steeplechasing or point-to-point than to fox hunting.
Another question that my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to explore is whether drag-hunting is suitable for young riders, because of its speed and because lines are generally laid for pursuit at a certain pace.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to express opinions on matters of which I am bound to say I have no technical knowledge, but I am sure that both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex are right. In any event, my point is that drag-hunting would not be acceptable as an alternative to many who take part in fox hunting, and that it is wrong to look to drag-hunting as a way of solving the unemployment problem that would follow a ban on fox hunting.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that only about 5 per cent. of those who hunt engage in drag-hunting as opposed to fox hunting, because of an innate lack of interest. Could it not also be said that the fact that only 5 per cent. of the 400,000 foxes that die each year are killed as a result of hunting demonstrates the ineffectiveness of fox hunting, which is often said to be the vital controlling mechanism in rural Britain?

Mr. Hogg: I am talking about freedom at this juncture, and about employment. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because not many foxes are killed, fox hunting should not be indulged in, that is a different argument. I was talking about drag-hunting and employment.
Saying that people should stop fox hunting and take up drag-hunting is as silly as saying that people should stop shooting pheasants and take up clay pigeon shooting. Why on earth should people have their affairs meddled with by the hon. Member for Brent, East—who is not even present now?

Mr. Tredinnick: I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has dealt sufficiently with the question of

employment. Having heard what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said, I must point out that drag-hunts tend not to employ many people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should note that.
Drag-hunts usually use six couple—in other words, 12—hounds, or dogs, as they are called by those who oppose hunting. Fox hunts require 40, 60 or even more hounds. The hunt is generally responsible for breeding the hounds, and in any case many more hounds are needed to find a scent than are needed in drag-hunting. In drag-hunting, the scent has already been laid by distinguished students such as, in his younger days, my right hon. and learned Friend.
When it comes to the economics—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are becoming longer and longer. He should allow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to answer.

Mr. Hogg: In the matter of drag-hunting, I bow to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I hope that he will have an opportunity to speak later, as he clearly has real knowledge of an activity that is very relevant to what we are debating.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it possible that the capture last night by the Conservative party of a seat on Kennet district council, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), was attributable to a desire on the part of voters in that area to demonstrate their support for the continuation of minority country pursuits?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that, but I can say this. It is perfectly true that from time to time opinion polls ask people whether they want fox hunting to continue, and that the majority usually reply that they do not. If, however, people are asked a different question, namely "Do you want the activity to be made criminal so that your fox-hunting neighbour can be put in jug?", they usually answer no. An awful lot depends on the question that is asked.
More particularly, I think that the country is more sensitive to the issue of human rights than Labour Members appreciate.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend has reached the kernel, or core, of the argument, which is something that the Labour party cannot ever understand. The Countryside Alliance organised a march in London to which nearly half a million people came, from the length and breadth of the land and from every walk and circumstance of life, to express their view that fox hunting should not become a criminal offence. Whatever views may be held on fox hunting, my right hon. and learned Friend's point about turning a legitimate sport into a criminal activity is at the centre of the argument.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I develop it in the following way. We can often judge whether an activity should be made unlawful by looking at the people who pursue that activity. That tells us about the quality of philosophy involved, the nature of the people, the social implications and this and that. I was on


the London march. I think that my hon. Friend was, too. Those on it were my neighbours—there were a lot of people from Lincolnshire, whom I knew well. They were in Hyde park, too. They are the sort of people whom I live my life with. I am glad to say that many of them vote for me, although many do not. They are ordinary citizens like us, decent or indecent.
One asks oneself whether decent ordinary citizens pursuing activities that they and their fathers have done for years should be turned into criminals. I find that question so repellant that it is difficult to contain myself. I am very, very angry.
People talk about net benefit to animals. I have been the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know about suffering to animals. If I wanted to abate their suffering, I would look at battery cages for chickens, for example. There are many more urgent things on the agenda than fox hunting. If one asks oneself what benefit will come from banning fox hunting in terms of animal welfare, the answer, surely, is none. Some will be poisoned. If any Member thinks that poisoning is a nice way to dispose of animals, they had better think again and come and live in the countryside.
I have seen foxes shot. I will never shoot a fox—certainly not with a shot gun, or at least not without a very heavy round. I have seen them shot and they get away. I am ashamed to say that I have shot at foxes in my youth. It is a thing never ever to do. I am deeply ashamed of myself.
That will happen in very considerable numbers because there will be foxes who will cause trouble in farming communities of one kind or another. They will be poisoned. They will be shot. They will be snared and otherwise disposed of. In God's name, there is no net benefit for foxes. We need to be clear about that.

Mr. Tredinnick: I would not want my right hon. and learned Friend to be in danger of misleading the House, but the fact is that he has not really explained that fox hunts normally set a very high priority on killing foxes who are wounded. He will recall that the Oxford university draghounds were kept at Stratton Audley, at the Bicester and Whaddon kennels. I remember going there as master and discussing that very point with the then huntsman, Brian Feasly.
The master always tried to look out foxes that were wounded. They were invariably wounded by people with shot guns or air guns. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would share with the House his experiences of that problem.

Mr. Hogg: I deplore the shooting of foxes with shot guns and, obviously, with air guns. I would never do it again. I did it when I was young and I am very ashamed of myself. One should never do it. Unless one has a heavy round, the foxes may get away and die of gangrene. One should never do that.

Mr. Blunt: I am convinced by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. He should turn his attention to clause 3, which in effect encourages shooting foxes. It is one of the exceptions: dogs are allowed to flush foxes out so that they can be shot.

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. There is even further hypocrisy about clause 3. If people are going to shoot foxes with a

rifle, which is the only sensible way to shoot a fox, they will not need dogs, so the implication is that they will use a shot gun on them.

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my hon. Friend, who may know more about the matter than me.

Mr. Soames: I do not think that there is anything on which I know more than my right hon. and learned Friend, but I am sure that he will not wish in any way to denigrate the admirable work by the gun packs in Wales, about which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows a great deal, and in Scotland, where it is impossible to hunt in a conventional hunt. Hounds—not dogs, incidentally; there is an inappropriate use of word "dogs": they are hounds—are used to flush the fox out. He is then shot by keepers who know exactly what they are doing. They always use, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, a very heavy load. If they did not shoot those foxes, the consequences for the ground-nesting bird population of all sorts would be catastrophic in the highlands. Their work is very valuable.

Mr. Hogg: I stand rightly corrected. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know about gun packs and I have seen some, I have never been out with them, so I do not have his expertise, but I am sure that he is right. A heavy round must be used. if people use No. 5 or No. 6, or whatever, it will not be enough to bring a fox down at close range with total certainty.

Mr. Öpik: On that point—I hope to develop some of these points, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—while I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about the dangers of an unclean hit, is he aware that, in some places it is not possible to use hounds to dispatch the fox, so gun packs, for example, following a run from cover in a wooded environment, might be the most efficient way?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. Gun packs have a role to play. I am sure that the keepers who use them have heavy rounds in their shot guns; otherwise, it would not be acceptable.
My next point goes to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said about the fact that fox hunters and hounds search out wounded animals. He is right. They have been shot previously and wounded, but there is another and more important point. A fit adult fox almost always gets away from the foxhound. Those who are caught are the old, the sickly and the lame, who should be culled, in the interest of the population and, probably, in their own interest, too. An active healthy fit fox almost always gets away.
I am coming to the conclusion of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am deeply flattered by the way in which that remark was received by my hon. Friends, who have sat with great patience, but I sum up where I stand. I will mention it only once because I know your views on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what happened earlier was a disgrace. However, we will leave that aside.
It is also a disgrace that the hon. Member for Brent, East has barely been in the Chamber. He is seeking to make criminal the activities of my constituents and he has not even had the courtesy to spend much of his time in the Chamber.
Further, it is disgrace that the Government should allow the debate to take place when they were awaiting the report of the noble Lord Burns, which they themselves have commissioned. That shows contempt for that committee, which is deeply troubling.

Mr. Eric Forth: On the conduct of the debate, it must surely be the case that the tradition here, as the House will know, is that the Member promoting a Bill seeks to wind up the debate to give the House a proper view of matters. How will the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) be able properly to wind up the debate and to refer to the contributions if he has not been here during the debate? Has my right hon. and learned Friend thought of that?

Mr. Hogg: I have not, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose parliamentary experience is second to none in this place. He is right, but underlying the attitude of the hon. Member for Brent, East is contempt for this place. He has benefited from a procedural device that is shameful. He has not been here to listen to the debate. He is unable to answer any of the questions that have been raised. He is pursuing his own political ambitions at the expense of my constituents. I regard that as a shameful disgrace. I wish he were here to hear me say so.
There are lots of technical arguments regarding whether hunting is an effective way to cull foxes, whether there is greater or lesser suffering, questions of employment and all the rest of it. All that is important, but, in the end, it is about freedom and liberty. That is where I stand.
If we stand for anything as Members of Parliament, in God's name, it is to defend liberty and the rights of minorities. That is the obligation that we take on when we come to this place. We are here to fight over mighty Government, but we are also here to fight overmighty majorities. I ask my hon. Friends to stand for that cause.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on making a very lucid and well-argued case. [Interruption.] I should hope that those who disagree with him will at least accord him the courtesy of acknowledging that he made a rational and well-argued case. I am always disappointed when responses become personal, and I hope that hon. Members will at least consider some of the points that he made, even if they do not agree with them.
I should like to say how absolutely disappointed I am that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has not found it possible to be in the House for the majority of the debate. [Interruption.] That will be him now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker takes an extremely strong line on electronic devices that are not under hon. Members' control in the Chamber.

Mr. Öpik: Perhaps that was a wrecking tactic by someone outside the Chamber.

Mr. Tredinnick: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Öpik: As I said, I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Brent, East has, so far, not found it

possible to attend the majority of the debate. Although I appreciate that he may have been caught unawares by the debate's timing, he has failed in his responsibility to listen to arguments on both sides of the debate, which he would do if he really were serious about the debate. One can only conclude that he is unable to entertain the prospect of having his views influenced by the debate in this Chamber.
I have respect personally for the hon. Gentleman, but if he does not think it sufficiently important to cancel whatever it is that has taken him from the Chamber, to listen to the debate, it is hard to respect his motives for promoting the Bill.
Those who have heard me speak on the issue before will know that, for me, this is a debate of profound moral importance. We are debating a libertarian issue that goes way beyond the issue of jobs, to those of minority rights and animal rights. In some ways, it is a test case of whether logic can triumph over emotion. I shall therefore judge this debate in rather the same way that I judged the debate on the previous Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)—who, as we all know, in 1997, initiated the current epoch of fox hunting debates. He showed, to his credit, that he was willing to listen to the various arguments, some of which I shall deal with later.
I hope that, as I develop my argument, hon. Members will genuinely listen and think about what I am saying. I see colleagues on the Labour Benches who may disagree with my views, but surely they will respect the fact that I and the organisation with which I have been closely associated, the middle way group, are genuinely trying to find an alternative that will satisfy the consensus—the majority view on the issue—in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree, so that it is put firmly on the record, that the majority of Liberal Democrat Members are opposed to blood sports such as fox hunting, and that, when we had the one vote on the issue, the majority of Liberal Democrats supported legislation to ban blood sports?

Mr. Öpik: As we all know, this is a free-vote issue, not a party political issue. In trying give my hon. Friend a constructive answer, I tell him that a majority of hon. Members—unquestionably, as the record shows—voted to support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester and for a ban. That is not a point of contention. What is in contention is whether polls and majority views should necessarily determine how we address libertarian and liberal issues.
A point that I shall develop later is that the hon. Member for Brent, East is a champion of minorities. He is one of those who has often stood up for minorities who would otherwise be discriminated against. I therefore think that it is incumbent on him to think seriously about the hypocrisy of his proposal.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I first jousted with him in political debate, if memory serves me correctly, the best part of 15 years ago, and it is always a pleasure to listen to him. Could he tell the House, and inform me, whether he has always supported the right to hunt, or whether he was persuaded by people in Montgomeryshire to do so?

Mr. Öpik: That is a pertinent question. Having changed my own views on the issue after debate and


argument, I hope that other hon. Members may follow the same logic and be persuaded in the same way. Seven or eight years ago, if I had been asked to vote on the issue, I probably would have supported legislation similar to the previous Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. However—after debating the issue, listening to those who are involved on both sides of the issue, and, perhaps most important of all, having observed the practice of fox control—I have been forced to change my view.
I do not think that this issue is a vote winner or a vote loser, even in my constituency. I should like to think that if I were persuaded by the hon. Members for Brent, East or for Worcester to hold a position on the issue contrary to that which I do hold, my constituents would respect that I had done so on the basis of moral argument and logic. I think that the most important task of Members of Parliament is to be able—rationally, not emotionally—to justify the positions that we take. I should also like to think that people in any constituency would respect that.
The issue of votes, therefore, does not come into it. If I returned to live in Newcastle upon Tyne, I would do so with the views that I now hold on fox hunting—although there are no hunts in Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, the constituency in which I stood in 1992.

Mr. Soames: We all the more admire and respect the hon. Gentleman because he came to his views in the way that he did. However, does he accept that, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—who represents a wholly urban seat; has never, ever been fox hunting; knows nothing about it at all; could not possibly know about it, but professes to hold strong views about it—he has encountered the problem that everyone faces in debating fox hunting? Does he accept that, although he and the hon. Gentleman are members of the same party—I differ with members of my own party—the issue deals with individual liberty, individual rights and protection of minorities? He is to be warmly congratulated for so firmly sticking to his guns.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. In defence of my hon. Friend, although we may differ in our views on fox hunting, the alternative for Colchester was unthinkable, and I am pleased that he is in the Chamber. I implore him, however, to think about the argument and to do what I had to do—to move by logic from a fairly uninformed position, based on an emotional reaction and some very emotive language from those who wish to ban hunting with dogs, to a reasoned position. I believe that I can justify my position on the issue to people on either side of the debate.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman has used the words "liberty" and "liberal" in the same sentence. The difficulty that he has to reconcile with his membership of the Liberal Democrat party, a majority of whose Members voted for the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), is that the Bill is thoroughly illiberal and constrains liberty. He and his colleagues cannot lay claim to the word "liberal" in defence of liberty.

Mr. Öpik: Tempting as the offer is, I do not intend to join the Conservative party in the foreseeable future—I do not suppose that I would be welcome anyway—even if there is a potential moral conflict between liberalism and the position of some of my colleagues. I believe that

this is a libertarian issue. I do not want to get into a semantic argument. The central issue is the balance between human rights and animal rights—between individual human freedom and the desire to regulate and protect the interests of animals.

Mr. Tom King: I should like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman is saying and give him some encouraging support. The best speech that I have heard in support of the case that he is making came from the former leader of his party, then Sir David Steel, now Lord Steel, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. He said that we all have the right to hold a different view from somebody else, even to despise their opinions, but that to seek to ban a lawful pursuit in which someone has chosen to engage is another matter, and no right-thinking liberal could possibly hold a different view.

Mr. Öpik: The difference between a policy based on logic and one based on prejudice is that one based on logic can be approved in the House even if a large proportion of individual Members find the freedom in question distasteful. It is a mark of a democracy that, to quote a well-used phrase, we may abhor what individuals sometimes say or do, but we defend to the death their right to do it. This is one of those issues. It is of profound significance not just for the countryside, but because of the message that it sends to the general public about protecting minority rights and the extent to which we allow ourselves to be influenced by emotion when we should be guided by logic and fact.
The current debate on fox hunting was kicked off again last July when the Prime Minister made a slightly careless statement on television, saying that he would like a ban on hunting. That led to a huge reaction in the countryside and among many people here. I do not blame the Prime Minister for not being clear at the time. To his credit, he subsequently clarified his position by asking the Home Secretary to commission an independent hunting inquiry under Lord Burns. The Prime Minister made that mistake because this is a tremendously technical issue. It may come as a shock to those who think that it is a simple issue to discover that fox hunting does not always involve hounds. There is an involved and complex series of four or five methods, any one of which could be used to dispatch a fox.
I shall come back to the processes in a moment, but first I shall outline the moral issue. The Government, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Countryside Alliance, the middle way group and many others accept the case for controlling fox numbers. Put bluntly, all those organisations—and, to his credit, the hon. Member for Worcester—accept that it is justifiable to kill foxes at least under certain conditions. That is important, because it moves the debate on from where the public are often led to think it is to where it really is. The debate is not about whether we kill foxes, but about how we do so. Once that point is established, we move away from an emotionally charged principle to a practical question about the efficiency of the various techniques and, more importantly, their relative cruelty.
I see that the hon. Member for Brent. East has returned. I hope that he will now be able to stay. Perhaps he might even be willing to intervene to clarify some of my points.
We have agreed that it is acceptable, even under the Bill, to kill foxes. We are talking about processes. It follows that the Bill is not about saving foxes' lives. The public need to be clear about that. Even if the Bill were passed, fox numbers would be controlled. I am willing to bet that they would be controlled in greater numbers—more foxes would be killed—because there would be less reason for countenancing a certain amount of attrition by the fox on account of the sporting benefits of hunting.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the approximate percentage of foxes that are currently killed by hunting? If killing by hunting is the preferred route, is he advocating more fox hunting, rather than less?

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend has not specified which process he means. I do not have the percentage to hand.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Öpik: Perhaps the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has the figure. I shall give way to him.

Mr. Gray: Game Conservancy recently carried out a study of different methods of fox control. In Norfolk, where they are all shot, there is now a zero population of foxes, whereas in Leicestershire and the west country, where there is a strong fox hunting tradition, there is a healthy number of foxes. That shows that, even if hunting is inefficient in killing foxes—16,000 foxes have been killed by organised hunts in the past 12 months—it preserves the species better than lamping and shooting, as happens in Norfolk and other pheasant-shooting areas.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing those figures. I hope that they are helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). There is a dynamic homeostatic equilibrium in the countryside. The fox population remains more or less constant. Farmers tolerate a certain amount of attrition and do not feel the need to eliminate the fox population. If we start messing around with that equilibrium by taking away what many feel are useful processes and their human rights, there is a good chance that fox numbers will be reduced.

Mr. David Taylor: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman to answer the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Estimates are that there are around 400,000 fox deaths each year, of which around 20,000 are the result of fox hunts. The figure is about 5 per cent., which shows that hunting is a peculiarly ineffective method of controlling the population.

Mr. Öpik: I could direct the hon. Gentleman to any number of farmers in my constituency, for whom hunting is the chosen way of controlling fox numbers. Farmers do not hate foxes. They respect foxes, but they believe that the equilibrium should be maintained by

methods which the hon. Gentleman regards as inefficient, but which they regard as familiar and traditional systems.

Mr. Tredinnick: Those 5 per cent. are often the foxes that need to be killed because they are wounded. Those are the foxes that the hounds seek out.

Mr. Öpik: My local hunt, the David Davis pack, which keeps me awake at night because the dogs are within 200 yards of my house, is sometimes called out by farmers to track down killer foxes. Amazing as it may seem, that process seems to work. The hunt can track down specific foxes.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point by identifying the different types of hunting. At this time of year many lambs are born. On Exmoor, for example, and elsewhere in the west country, the packs provide a service to farmers. They will go out at any time of the day or night to get rid of a fox that has been taking lambs. There is no other way to do that. Farmers do not have time to sit up all night with a lamp and rifle, so they have to get the hounds out. That is an important part of the service that hunts provide for the local community.

Mr. Öpik: That is right. For the benefit of the House, I shall describe the various processes involved. There are four main ways to control foxes—shooting, digging out and shooting, trapping or snaring, and hunting with a pack. Those methods can be varied or combined.
Shooting is self-explanatory. One way or another, a fox is tracked down and shot. When dogs are used, the process is called flushing from cover. For example, dogs may be put into woods to flush out a fox, and then the hunters try to shoot it. Lamping is the process by which people go out at night with a lamp. The fox is then shot, perhaps by a trained marksman.
Digging out is an important part of the process. It involves digging out a fox that has been run to ground, often by terriers wearing locator beacons. A hole is dug, the fox pulled out and shot in the head.
Trapping and snaring need no explanation.
In hunting with dogs, the dogs are the primary means by which the fox is dispatched.
Hon. Members will be smart enough to work out how the various techniques that I have described can be combined. I do not think that the public understand that, even were this Bill to be passed, foxes would continue to be killed in those various ways.
No persuasive case has been made by any supporter of the Bill to explain why killing foxes with dogs are crueler than other techniques. I do not believe that it is, although I would have difficulty providing an objective justification for that belief. To do so, I would have to use circumstantial evidence, as would people arguing the opposite case.
I would also turn to my own experience and to evidence from respected sources such as veterinary surgeons who have examined foxes killed by hounds. However, I repeat that supporters of the Bill have provided no objective evidence that dispatching a fox with hounds is more cruel than the alternatives that they accept as reasonable.
One of the challenges for the hon. Member for Brent East is to develop an objective argument to explain why killing foxes with dogs are crueler than the alternatives. That was never achieved when the subject was last debated in connection with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester.
People use emotive language, and talk about the barbaric practice of tearing a fox apart. They assume that using dogs has to be cruel, and that that assumption need not be justified further. That is not acceptable, as it is based on prejudice.
In an intervention earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Brent, East whether he would amend the Bill if it could be shown that killing a fox with dogs was less cruel than shooting it. He said that he certainly would not.

Mr. Livingstone: I said that because I do not believe that to be the case. If, at the end of my days, the people at Millbank tower offered me three choices of death—being torn apart by dogs, being hanged, or being shot—I would choose being shot.

Mr. Öpik: That would depend on the size of the dogs, and I thought what the hon. Gentleman described had already taken place.
That is a useful point. It shows that the underlying assumption is that dispatching a fox with dogs must be cruel. The hon. Gentleman's mind is closed to the possibility that other people may think differently, in which he is not unique. That demonstrates my point. We must look at the facts. The hon. Gentleman's view in effect invalidates the Burns inquiry, whose specific remit is to look at the facts and provide some objective basis for a determination about the relative cruelty of killing a fox with dogs.

Mr. Leigh: Does not that facetious point from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) make our argument? He is a creature of the light. He moves in daylight, surrounded by television cameras, and so could be dispatched easily by a Millbank tower sniper with a high-powered rifle. Foxes are different: they go by night, and are impossible to kill cleanly. Even expert marksmen often only wound them. That would not happen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Öpik: It would also explain why the hon. Member for Brent, East is perpetually on the move. Given recent events, one has to have some sympathy for that strategy.
The crucial point is that to have a closed mind and automatically assume that killing foxes with dogs must be cruel is to give way to prejudice. If the hon. Gentleman and the supporters of his Bill are so certain of their facts, why do they fear an objective debate? Why are they unwilling to analyse the counter-arguments with an open mind? If they are right, an objective argument will confirm their view. They might even convince people like me, who have shown that we can listen and modify our views. I hope that he and others will take that point seriously.
I am optimistic. The hon. Member for Worcester listened to some important arguments from me about using dogs to flush foxes from cover, and he amended his Bill accordingly. Those changes have been carried over into this Bill. We succeeded in having some dialogue, and I hope that we can make similar progress again.
I turn now to the grounds on which the hon. Member for Brent East has based his proposal. Let us assume that Lord Burns's inquiry finds that hunting with dogs is immeasurably worse than any other way of dispatching foxes. Let us assume that it is cruel and see where we end up.
To be consistent, fishing would also have to be banned. That has been lucidly explained already. There is plenty of evidence that fish feel pain. In the Standing Committee considering the previous Bill, I made that point and was told that fish were not mammals—at least not yet. At that point, I thought that I would be in Committee for hundreds of millions of years as fish evolved into mammals. In the event, it only seemed that long. Whether fish are mammals or not is irrelevant to whether they can feel pain. There many people here whom I regard as reptilian and I am sure that they feel pain at times. [Interruption.] I will not name names. We cannot distinguish whether it is acceptable to kill cold-blooded animals rather than warm-blooded ones. The inconsistency stands.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in advancing what I believe to be extremely flawed arguments against fox hunting, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals advances exactly the same arguments with regard to shooting and fishing? The RSPCA would ban all three. If Labour Members who are pouring obloquy on his head for raising the issue of fishing believe in the RSPCA's arguments, they must also believe in banning fishing.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I would go further, and say what it may be hard for Labour Members to say. The only reason why the inconsistency persists is that the desire to ban fox hunting is based on emotion rather than logic and, secondly, that the fear of the logical consequences of that is so great that they are unwilling to reconcile a glaring inconsistency which any first-year philosophy student would have spotted straight away.

Mr. David Taylor: Is it not an unworthy suggestion that the arguments put forward by Labour Members and supporters of the Bill are based entirely on emotion and not logic, when it could equally be argued that the hon. Gentleman's own Damascene conversion on the road from Newcastle to Westminster occurred only because he has a large number of fox-hunting farmers as constituents?

Mr. Öpik: I do not want to suggest that I do not respect the motives of those who support banning fox hunting. One of the ironies of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester was that I made some good and enduring friends among those who took the opposing view of the argument, among whom I include the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of time and fondness. [Interruption.] I will not be going on holiday with him, however, and certainly not on a fishing holiday. I believe that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and his colleagues have sincere and genuine beliefs. My concern is, however, that those positions are based on emotion. We can disagree on that; it does not make their position wrong, but it is not how I want the argument pursued.
It is contradictory to argue that I was converted on the way to Montgomeryshire from Newcastle. The hon. Member for Brent, East said that he believes that in every constituency in the United Kingdom, a majority of people support banning fox hunting. He is probably right. I have never done a poll in Montgomeryshire, which is a very rural area, but he could be right. More people might like to see fox hunting banned: there are towns in the area, and only a minority of people hunt foxes. This is not a vote winner for me. Nor do I think it a vote winner for those who support a ban. I think that it is a neutral issue when it comes to elections. Although it generates a lot of noise, it is not of more concern than the condition of the health service or education, and all the other issues that we regard as the key determinants of how people vote.

Mr. Taylor: I have a piece of information for the hon. Gentleman from the fox-hunting county of Leicestershire, of which I represent 10 per cent. In my constituency, the Quorn hunt is to the north and the Atherstone hunt to the south. I conducted a large-scale survey in the urban areas of north-west Leicestershire, where the figure in favour of a ban was 80:20. In the rural areas, in which about 50 per cent. of the electorate live, the figure was approximately 60:40. Therefore, on average, the figure is exactly typical of the United Kingdom, with at least 70 per cent. of people in favour of a ban. Even in rural areas, where the well-known fox hunts are active, a substantial majority of the local population favours a ban.

Mr. Öpik: That corroborates my belief. Just as with hanging, the majority of people in the United Kingdom, if asked, would probably support a ban on what they think of as fox hunting. If they were asked if they supported a ban on fox hunting, they would say yes, not recognising that it can take various forms. In some ways, the hon. Gentleman has answered his earlier question. I do not think that my having changed my view is a big vote winner. In fact, I would much rather be doing work on other things this morning than talking about fox hunting. However, because it is an important moral issue, I find myself standing here and talking about it way beyond its significance to Montgomeryshire.
Angling has no pest-control benefit whatever. Not one sheep has ever been taken by a fish in my constituency, to the best of my knowledge, even during the severe floods of 1999. There is no case for justifying angling on grounds of anything other than sport. It is cruel—the fish are wounded, and then thrown back in the water. What kind of justification can there be for that kind of sport if fox hunting is banned? I would not ban angling or fishing.

Mr. Tom King: Why not?

Mr. Öpik: Because I believe that there must be a balance between human rights and animal rights. Although I find angling slightly distasteful, if somebody drafted a Bill to ban it, I would make similar moral arguments about the rights of individuals to choose.
These are not black and white issues. We are a meat-eating society; we could have a legitimate debate about whether that is right. I object to the willy-nilly approach in which some activities are regarded as

acceptable prey for banning and others are practised by the very individuals who seek to take away individuals' rights to catch foxes.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: If we follow his argument all the way, would the hon. Gentleman legalise badger baiting, cock fighting, bear baiting, and so on?

Mr. Öpik: A similar question was asked earlier, and was not answered, so I shall give my perspective. No, I would not. Just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I said that these issues are not black and white. Society progresses slowly. The hon. Members for Worcester and for Brent, East are trying to move us forward to what they think is the next step in our civilisation or our attitude towards animals. There is a grey area here. If one were a purist, one could either support complete deregulation or do whatever one liked with regard to pets and animals, or one could be vegan and not harm animals in any way. Those are not realistic positions.
I believe that British society, which cares about animals, has it about right. I am concerned about the danger of creating inconsistent moral codes based on our assumptions and prejudices about certain sports because they are emotive, while leaving others untouched.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman talks about having a choice and what is acceptable. Earlier in the debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about his wife playing fish. What, I take it, was implicit in that statement was that once his wife had played the fish, she did not engineer for other animals to rip it apart in front of her while it was still alive, for pleasure.

Mr. Öpik: Again and again we see the assumption that killing a fox with dogs is the cruellest method. I assume that the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the cruellest form of dispatching a fox, although I hope not.
Two important points flow from the hon. Gentleman's intervention. First, I sense that, to the credit of the House, right hon. and hon. Members are beginning to see that it is possible to have a different and more objective view of whether killing a fox with dogs is as cruel as shooting or other techniques. If a chink of light has been shed on that matter, I am most encouraged because we can have a constructive debate on it if the Bill reaches Committee. I have forgotten his second point—

Hon. Members: Playing fish.

Mr. Livingstone: If the hunting lobby plans to filibuster until we have to move a closure at 2 pm, there is no point in my side being restrained.
Hon. Members have referred to cruelty in the ways that foxes are killed. Some people who support hunting assume that a quick nip by a dog will dispatch the fox. That would be true if they were hunting with a tiger or a lion, which kill rapidly with one bite. Dogs—like wolves—are pack-hunting animals. They bite and tear down their prey and disembowel it. Death usually takes a long time if an animal is being hunted by a pack-hunting animal.

Mr. Öpik: I shall not pursue the subject of fish, as I have made my point. We are not discussing a Hunting Fish with Dogs Bill, so I shall move on.
The hon. Member for Brent, East does not understand how a pack of dogs kills a fox. I have talked to vets about that, and they told me that it takes about 0.6 seconds, on average, from the arrival of the dogs—[Interruption.] The dogs get there by chasing the fox. If we added the time for the chase, we should get into a debate about whether the chase plus the kill is more or less cruel than the alternatives. That is my point. The hon. Gentleman can say that he thinks that that practice is more cruel than anything else and I can reply that it is not unduly cruel compared with the alternatives, but we need to move from such tit-for-tat debate to some more objective facts.
It is a tall order to expect Lord Burns to provide us with a complete and unequivocal analysis with which we can all agree, but if we could at least reach the stage at which we can accept that there is a genuine debate to be had—leaving aside all the emotive and barbed language—we should have made progress. Even those who feel strongly on the issue could at least respect that process. However, to date, there has often been a tendency to make claims such as, "The fox was literally torn apart and that is unbelievably cruel and obviously wrong." That is not an argument. It is not a logical or coherent point; it is simply a feeling that is not necessarily backed up by facts.
I realise that I have been speaking for some time, but I assure the hon. Member for Brent, East that I am not making spurious or illogical arguments or going back to points that I have already made—I hope that he is aware of that by now.

Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman is much better on asteroids.

Mr. Öpik: I have not mentioned asteroids once during this debate. I will take that as a cue to move on to my concluding remarks.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has received a certain amount of abuse from Labour Members who have made suggestions similar to the comments of Lord Steel in 1995. He said that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was correct to say that if clause 2 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—which would have introduced a ban—was accepted, it would not be long before other Bills came before the House to ban other country sports. Lord Steel said that one of the reasons for his concern was that he enjoyed fishing even though he did not hunt.
There may be a misunderstanding. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is prepared to accept the cruelty in fishing—it is undoubtedly cruel—or whether he wants to ban fishing too.

Mr. Öpik: That is for the hon. Member for Brent, East to answer. If I had been on the ball earlier, I would have pointed out to him that asteroids would be a much clumsier and more expensive way of controlling the fox population.

Mr. Livingstone: I am not sure whether we should make interventions through third parties. However, I point out to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)

that I do not go fishing; I did so once, but found it monumentally boring because I did not catch anything. It is not something that I should choose to do. However, there is a different scale of pain involved in fishing, when a creature is being dragged around with a hook in its lip, compared to that involved in being torn apart by dogs. I would not go fishing, but I have no intention of voting to ban it. In 31 years in public life, I have received only one letter urging me to ban it.

Mr. Öpik: I want to move on from that point. There is no need to filibuster on this measure; many Members with strong views are in the Chamber, so I shall try to bring my remarks to a close.
I have one further point on cruelty. If we stop hunting with dogs, or dispatching foxes with dogs, we should not pretend that that would not cause its own cruelty. Tens of thousands of dogs will be put down, because a dog cannot be retrained to go drag-hunting. If it has been trained to catch foxes, it will always follow their scent. The hon. Member for Brent, East should include in his utilitarian analysis of what is most cruel a consideration of the premium he puts on the lives of tens of thousands of dogs that would make terrible pets. We would be signing their death warrants.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what currently happens to hounds that are no longer required for hunting?

Mr. Öpik: No. That is not the moral issue about which I am arguing. I know what my hon. Friend is alluding to; he believes that the hounds are put down. I am not an expert on the matter, but I hope that other hon. Members may be able to give him more detail about that in their speeches.

Mr. David Taylor: I am sorry to bombard the hon. Gentleman with statistics. However, 7,000 foxhounds are born each year, of which 5,000 are put down because they are unsuitable for hunting. There is no logic in the argument that all foxhounds would be put down if hunting were banned. As those hounds were trained to hunt foxes, so they could be trained for other forms of hunting that did not involve the pursuit of mammals.

Mr. Öpik: Hounds cannot easily be retrained. I am aware that there are experts in the Chamber who probably want to speak on that subject, and I want to conclude my speech to give them the chance to do so. However, it is my judgment, and that of those who have given me guidance, such as David Jones—one of the best in the business when it comes to hunting—that hounds cannot be retrained to go drag-hunting if they have been trained to go fox hunting. Others may want to pursue that issue, but I am covering so many aspects already that I do not want to go into that. I do not want to be accused of gratuitously trying to cover every single subject or subsection.
There are some good elements in the Bill. Some changes have been made, and I have complimented the hon. Member for Worcester on a pretty constructive dialogue, given where we started when his Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was being considered, some time ago. This Bill permits flushing from cover; it is quite well worded on that. It seems to recognise that


terrier work may be necessary. As I read the Bill—the hon. Member for Brent, East may be able to clarify this—it seems to accept, by implication, that terriers may be used, as long as they are not used to dispatch the fox underground. If that is what is meant, that is sensible, because terriers can be trained not to enter a dogfight. However, that is a technical matter, better suited to the Standing Committee. There are some other bits and pieces that would clarify ambiguities in the Bill.
However, overall, it is my fundamental moral concern that the Bill makes criminals out of law-abiding people who are simply pursuing a traditional method of fox control in their area.
Several times, the hon. Member for Brent, East sought to justify his Bill by saying that the majority supported it. I covered that point earlier, but let me remind him of my point, now that he is present. He has a worthy reputation for standing up for minority rights, even when he has been criticised for doing so. This is a classic example of minority rights being under threat, and I hope that he realises—this is not a spurious or specious argument in the slightest—that if he wants to be consistent, he should at least seriously think about supporting the minority that is under threat now, on the same grounds on which he has taken publicly unpopular decisions to support other minorities. I give him credit for the work that he has done in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman may not like the people who go fox hunting—he may have his own view about their class, or about the fact that they actually enjoy catching foxes—but, whether or not he finds the individuals distasteful, if he restricts himself to the question of cruelty, as he said he would do at the start of the debate, he must set aside his emotional reaction to the individuals carrying out fox hunting and confine himself to the philosophical question.

Mr. Livingstone: When I attended the Waterloo cup, I confirmed that there were all classes there. Interestingly, most of the working class were on one side of the field and most of the aristocracy were on my side of the field—I was invited into their tent and offered some nice game soup. I have not the slightest doubt that vast numbers of working-class people go hunting; anyone who assumes that only toffs hunt is wildly wrong. The majority of the people who go hunting are working class. The majority of the people who go out without any form of organisation and hunt animals illegally are working class; I am sure of it. This is not a class but an animal cruelty issue.

Mr. Öpik: I will accept the hon. Gentleman at his word. He has an honest face—at least from this side of the Chamber. I am glad that he reassured us that, for him, this is not a class matter. However, I would still encourage him to recognise that the fact that he finds fox hunting distasteful himself is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to ban it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that had seen the tenderness of foxes, and that that was one of the motivating factors that had caused him to believe that foxes should not be killed in such a way. Cows have feelings too, as have sheep, amazing as it may be. One can see a farmer becoming attached to his animals, and farmers often find it hard to eat animals that they have

reared because—believe it or not—they have developed an emotional bond with the animals. That leads us down the path of vegetarianism or something else. There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism, but there is something wrong with an argument that looks at the emotions of the animals as a justification for questioning one method of controlling those animals.
What would be the best way forward on this issue? There seem to be three options. The first is a total ban. I believe that we have established that that is not on the agenda. It is not in the Bill, so I shall not waste the time of the House in explaining why that would be a bad idea. The second is not to change at all. I know that some people feel that the status quo is acceptable, but I am not among them, and neither is the middle way group.
There are cowboys who pursue activities that are, in my judgment, cruel and unjustified—who torture animals and so on. I believe that there should be regulation, not least to get rid of the cowboys who do it for fun, and who are not represented in the House by me or any other Opposition Member. That leads us to the third way—the middle way. Not surprisingly, that is the way that I believe that we should go. In simple terms, the middle way group proposes that we establish an independent hunting authority, with statutory powers to enforce a legally binding code of practice, and with inspectors who can drop in unannounced on a kennel or a hunt to compare practice with the standards that are set in that code.
Penalties should exist, ranging from a caution to the revocation of the hunting licence together with, potentially, court proceedings and more serious penalties. The authority—some suggest that it should be called "Offox"—would be paid for entirely by a fee for a licence to go hunting, so it would not cost the taxpayer anything to set up.
I should like to think that even Labour Members and the hon. Member for Brent, East could find some merit in the idea of an independent hunting authority and a code of practice, whether or not the hon. gentleman agrees with the detailed point about hunting with dogs, because I think that such a regulatory structure would be publicly seen as sensible and a fair-minded means of enforcement.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there should be some degree of political independence in that independent hunting authority. It should not be a political or party political grouping. It should consist of individuals who are generally regarded as expert and fair on the question of fox hunting. I have described the middle way group's proposals, and I hope that we can debate them as the Bill progresses, as I imagine it will.
For me, this is a libertarian issue. I hope that, without too much digression, I have explained why it is such an issue. I hope that I have also set forward a challenge in unequivocal terms to the Bill's supporters to explain how they square the circle of dealing with hunting with dogs, but leaving fishing and angling untouched. It is not that I want them to ban other activities; I would like them to think again about what is a prejudicial move based on strong and sincerely held emotions about the apparent cruelty of killing a fox with dogs.
Sometimes we must introduce unpopular measures because they are right, but sometimes it is tempting to do the wrong thing because it is popular. We are faced with that dilemma in this debate. Many people will judge the quality of the House on whether we can set aside our


strongly and sincerely held emotions and consider the objective facts. That is how we got rid of hanging, and I would like to think that is how we will ultimately protect the most valuable thing that we have in the United Kingdom—the freedom of the individual to pursue activities in a balance between human and animal rights.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I wish to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I am grateful to Labour colleagues for enabling it to take place by their use of parliamentary procedure. They are to be commended, and I thank them.
The Bill has all the hallmarks of what was termed the "Foster Bill". A similar Bill not only received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in November 1997, but went through Standing Committee and reached Report before Opposition Members—although not all of them—decided to use procedures to frustrate its progress; the Bill subsequently ran out of time.
The Foster Bill was without doubt about one issue alone—animal welfare. I, like the vast majority of Members in the House, believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: All sorts of theories have been put forward as to why I moved the motion to enable us to move on to this debate. The answer is pure and simple and there is no hidden conspiracy. I want fox hunting to be banned as much as my hon. Friend does and as much as hundreds and thousands of my constituents do. That is why I moved the motion; there was no hidden agenda.

Mr. Foster: The record will show how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for getting the debate on to the Floor of the House. This is an important issue, and one in which the British people think the House has frustrated their wishes. Opinion polls show that overwhelming numbers of people rightly want a ban on hunting with dogs. One day the British people will thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has helped, I hope, to bring that about.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I wish to make a bit of progress, and I shall then give way.
I said that the Bill is about animal welfare and that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. One argument used in favour of hunting with dogs is the so-called quick-kill theory. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that it takes 0.6 seconds for a kill to take place, but I would like to see the evidence. I think that he is talking nonsense, and I shall explain why that is so.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is just about to tell us how hounds dispatch a fox. He will remember that in the Committee stage of his Bill he was forced, under heavy questioning, to admit that he had never been at a hunt of any kind and that he had never seen hounds killing a fox. He knew nothing about it, because he had no hands-on

experience. Has he put that ignorance right in the meantime by going to a hunt and seeing the hounds kill a fox?

Mr. Foster: I shall certainly deal with that point. I went on a hunt with the Worcestershire hunt before my Bill had its Second Reading in 1997. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong, and the record will state that.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I want to make progress before I take any more interventions. The way in which a pack of dogs chases a fox—

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I was incorrect in saying that he had not attended a hunt. I should like to correct the point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for the debate.

Mr. Foster: Invariably, when dogs are pursuing a fox, the fox's rear quarters come closest to the dogs when the chase comes to an end. It is obvious that the dogs will get hold of the fox at the rear and bring it down so that it can no longer run. That is a tendency of all canine hunting packs. The fox is then flipped over, attacked and disembowelled. The occasional kill might take 0.6 seconds, but that is not the norm. We have seen post-mortem evidence of the remains of foxes where the spinal column was intact and had not been cut in a quick kill. The veterinary evidence was that the fox had died of haemorrhaging, through being torn apart while alive. Let the record state that that is the case.

Mr. Tredinnick: I have seen foxes killed in hunting, and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that foxhounds' instincts are to go for the neck, and foxes are normally killed in that way. There may be occasional aberrations, but they are a tiny percentage and most foxes are killed very quickly.

Mr. Foster: We have not only veterinary evidence from post-mortems but video evidence of dogs bringing down a fox and tearing at its stomach before it is killed. We also have evidence from individuals who have witnessed kills, sometimes in their own back garden, where hunt havoc has taken place and they have had to witness an episode that has disgusted them.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I want to make a little progress before I give way again.
It has been said that there is no alternative way to dispatch foxes, but shooting is viable and it is the recommended way in which to dispose of foxes. It has been said also that hunting with dogs does a great service


to the fox community because it culls the weak, the old and the lame. Unless I am very much mistaken, foxhounds cannot, by picking up a scent, distinguish between a healthy young fox and a three-legged or old fox. I do not believe for one moment that once the hounds are on the scent and in full cry, the huntsmen will call off the chase. That is utter nonsense.
Furthermore, why does cub hunting still take place in the autumn, when fox cubs are about six months old? If cub hunting did not take place, the arguments of Conservative Members would have some credibility, but young foxes are killed in cub hunting.

Mr. Leigh: Of course the hounds do not differentiate between the scent of an old, sick fox and that of a young, healthy one. The point is that the young, healthy fox simply gets away. There is overwhelming evidence that the great majority of foxes caught by the hunt are the old, the sick and the wounded, including very often those that have been inexpertly shot. The hunt therefore fulfils an animal welfare purpose in dispatching elderly or sick foxes.

Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point because it allows me to nail another myth put forward by Conservative Members, which is that many foxes that have been wounded by inaccurate shots are roaming the countryside. The RSPCA, which has looked after thousands of sick and injured foxes that have been brought to its animal hospitals, says that less than five have been brought in suffering from shot wounds. There are clearly not vast numbers of wounded foxes hobbling around the countryside.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the fox is extremely prone to gangrene? If it is shot by lead shot, gangrene kills it relatively quickly, so that is probably why so few have ended up at the RSPCA.

Mr. Foster: I accept that the wound of any wounded animal can turn gangrenous, but I do not believe the myths put forward by pro-hunt groups.
To maintain a healthy rural economy, a relatively easy switch could be made to drag-hunting. All the jobs associated with hunting with dogs would continue to exist, all the services provided to hunts would still be needed, and the social aspects of hunting, which I know give great pleasure to those who go hunting, would be preserved. When I was out with the Worcestershire hunt in autumn 1997, the hunt followers told me how important the thrill of the ride and the chase was to them, and what great pleasure they get from it. I know that they do not go into it for the killing. They go hunting for the pleasure, the chase and—to use a term that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will understand—the crack.

Mr. Martin Salter: My hon. Friend mentions jobs. Does he welcome the inquiry set up under Lord Burns to examine the potential impact of a ban on hunting on employment opportunities, particularly in the countryside? Does he recall that when we debated his Bill on 28 November 1997 and it received such overwhelming support in the House, one of the best contributions came

from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? She said that the jobs argument was fatuous, and that if we listened to it, we would not try to tackle crime because it would put police officers out of work, and we would not try to tackle disease because it would put doctors and nurses out of work. How would my hon. Friend respond to those comments, and how does he feel about the jobs argument in general?

Mr. Foster: I hope to deal with the Burns inquiry later in my contribution. There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an enormously powerful contribution in that debate. It was widely noted, especially by the press, and her arguments about jobs is logical and stands up to scrutiny by the House.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire commented that dogs that had been used for fox hunting could not be retrained. With all due respect, he should seek out the facts. Last September I went to see the New Forest draghounds. We spoke to people who had previously hunted live quarry with the dogs, and asked how they had made the switch to drag-hunting. One of the aspects that concerned me was the welfare of the dogs, and whether dogs could be retrained.
I spoke to the chaps who trained the dogs and asked how long it took—weeks or months. In fact, it takes two days to train a dog that is used to following a natural scent to follow an artificial scent. It can be done right across the country. I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to go down to the New Forest and have a chat with the people there.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman.
There is an argument that farmers will not allow drag-hunting on their land—that they allow fox hunting because it is a form of pest control and gets rid of the fox, whereas with drag-hunting there is no kill, so they will not allow it. I believe that farmers allow the hunt on their land because it picks up the fallen stock that they would otherwise have to dispose of in a more costly manner. That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting on their land.

Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am listening to his speech with interest. From the fact that some people resist the change to drag-hunting, the only conclusion that one can draw is that they would miss the thrill of the kill. Is not that the reason why they do not want to move to drag-hunting?

Mr. Foster: The majority of people who take part in hunting do not do so for the kill. Many have never seen a kill, and I do not believe that they hunt for that purpose. The minority may like the blood, but the majority participate for the ride, the chase, the pleasure and the day out in the countryside. That is why drag-hunting is such an obvious alternative; people can enjoy all that without a kill.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
We all accept that farming is in difficulties. Why not let farmers charge for allowing a drag-hunt to go over their land? That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting. They could thus earn some income on the side. We embrace the free market; charging for drag-hunting is private enterprise.

Mr. Soames: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about how quickly hounds would take to following a different scent if they were taken into a drag pack. A foxhound will follow a scent because that is its instinct. If one chucks a ball at a Labrador puppy, he will return it instinctively.
I have addressed the mid-Surrey farmers' dinner, and a famous pack of draghounds runs in my constituency and nearby constituencies. Farmers welcome the drag, but they also welcome the hunt. They welcome it not only because of the fallen stock—although the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was right to mention that the hunt fulfils a useful function for farmers—but because they love having the hounds on their land, even though the hunt gets in the way on agricultural land. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss tradition and love of the sport as a motivation for many farmers.

Mr. Foster: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall extend his argument. Hunting is a bit of nuisance on agricultural land, but it is welcome because some farmers like to experience the pleasure of the hunt. Drag-hunting would provide that pleasure, with the additional benefit of greater certainty about its direction. A fox will go where it wants to go; a drag-hunt will lead the chase to its intended destination. It would help farmers if they knew where the hunt would go on their land.
Let us consider pest control. It has already been said that up to 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs. Eighty thousand are shot and 100,000 are killed by cars. The pest-control argument is not therefore a reason to allow hunting with dogs to continue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that the Bill excepted terrier work. I ask him to read clause 3(3), which prohibits flushing out from underground. Terriers would not be allowed to flush out a fox that had sought cover.
Let us be clear about what happens during a hunt. To prolong the hunt and the chase, people go out on the previous night and fill up the holes where foxes would naturally seek refuge. The official term is "stopping". If it is claimed that hunting is part of some sort of natural existence, why stop holes where the fox could escape? It is done to prolong the chase. That is unacceptable.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least poachers use the fast-running lurcher to kill their prey, while fox hunts use foxhounds because they are slow running, thus prolonging the chase and the agony?

Mr. Foster: The Bill would also outlaw the type of poaching to which my hon. Friend refers because it involves dogs.

Mr. Öpik: I do not want to keep bothering the hon. Gentleman, but may I quickly put two questions? Is he against terrier work because he does not think that it can be done in a way that prevents the terrier from attacking

the fox? Does he agree that Lord Burns's report needs to consider the process of terrier work and get into the points on cruelty that he made a few minutes ago?

Mr. Foster: I shall come to the Burns inquiry shortly, but we made our arguments on terrier work in Committee and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am against it. He suggested the idea of timing a dog and getting it to come out of an earth after exactly an hour. I have yet to see a dog that can tell the time, so I dismiss that argument.
Hunts always create artificial earths. In its submission to the Burns inquiry, the Masters of Foxhounds Association acknowledged that they are used to encourage the fox to seek refuge and shelter. I do not understand why that goes on. Why would anybody who thinks that killing a fox is suitable pest control do that?

Mr. Barry Gardiner: To encourage the fox to be there.

Mr. Foster: Using artificial earths does not make sense—it is illogical—and, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, people must want to encourage the fox to be there so that they know where the quarry is when they go out hunting. That is why artificial earths exist.
I return to the submission to the Burns inquiry, which says that cub hunting is designed not only to kill young foxes, although it is acknowledged that there is a greater concentration in autumn so hunting is easier, but to train the dogs. I accept that, but it is also stated that cub hunting involves dispersing foxes. Why disperse a pest? Why push a pest into the countryside so that no one knows where it is? If the fox is a pest, surely people want to know where it is so that they can kill it—if they think that needs to be done to a pest—and they should not disperse or hide it. Again, that shows the inconsistencies in the arguments made by the pro-hunt lobby.

Mr. Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Foster: I would like to make progress, if I may.
That brings me to the Burns inquiry, which is considering the whole issue of hunting with dogs. I am on the record as expressing concern over the membership of the inquiry team—that is no big secret—but I believe that if the inquiry considers the submissions objectively it will reach no conclusion other than that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary.
Allied to the Burns inquiry, which the Government set up, is the promise that Government time will be made available to push the issue through should we not be successful before the inquiry concludes. Indeed, they have promised the use of the Parliament Acts as well, so seriously do they take bringing this matter to a conclusion. The House and Members from all political parties have already voted once, in overwhelming numbers, to ban hunting with dogs. I welcome the opportunity created by Labour Members to have a debate on the Floor of the House. The sooner we deal with the issue, the better.

Mr. David Lidington: I should make it clear at the outset that, as always when this subject is under debate in the House, Members from my party will


have a free vote in any Division. Although I speak from the Front Bench, I shall express my own opinions rather than any corporate policy of the Conservative party.
I preface my remarks by repeating what a number of hon. Members have already noted. It is extraordinary and disgraceful that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—having secured time for his private Member's Bill, in which he presumably believes very strongly—should so disdain the House of Commons that he cannot even be bothered to attend the debate. I remember the sense of privilege that I felt at obtaining a high place in the ballot; the hon. Gentleman's conduct brings nothing but contempt on him and his reputation here.

Mr. Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: No, I shall not give way on that point.
The Government's failure to vote against a motion that the House sit in private is also contemptible. I cannot recall that happening in my time in the House. The Countryside Alliance and others who have been engaged in this debate have trusted the Government's protestations of good faith and have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that will send a message to people outside the House that the Government put the quick soundbite and photo opportunity ahead of any serious regard for the arguments.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make it clear, especially in the light of the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), how the Government intend to approach the findings of the Burns committee, which they established. The hon. Member for Worcester clearly made the assumption that, whatever the conclusions of the Burns committee report, he expects the Government in due course to introduce legislation to outlaw hunting with hounds. That is what he and those who support his line of argument expect. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption, or whether the Government will approach the conclusions of the Burns committee in an impartial spirit, given that they may be at variance with those to which the hon. Members for Worcester and for Brent, East would like it to come.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that two hunts are based in my constituency: the Vale of Aylesbury hunt and the Old Berkeley Beagles. I do not hunt myself: I have never done so, and have never felt any inclination to do so. However, I have reached the conclusion that the case for a ban on hunting with hounds is misguided and wrong.
I want to speak briefly about the impact of a ban on the rural economy, about the conservation and animal welfare aspects and about the matter of civil rights, which was dealt with at length and with great eloquence by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Mr. Salter: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for

Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 28 November were misguided and wrong? What unanimity is there among Conservative Members on this issue?

Mr. Lidington: I have had many cordial discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this subject. We disagree firmly about hunting with hounds. On this issue, if on no other, my right hon. Friend is wrong. I share the views expressed by another formidable lady, my constituent Baroness Mallalieu, who talks a great deal of sense on this subject.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other lady who talks a great deal of sense and was in the Chamber briefly this morning is the Minister for Sport, who spoke so powerfully in the debate on 28 November?

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point well. I shall first deal with the economic impact of a ban on hunting with hounds.
As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there can be no certainty about the economic cost of a ban. A report produced about three years ago by Cobham Resource Consultants estimated the total expenditure in the economy generated by hunting at just over £300 million a year. It also concluded that about 15,200 jobs in Great Britain owed their existence directly to hunting, and that the existence of just under 8,000 could be attributed to it indirectly. According to a survey of the hotel and guest-house trade in the Exmoor and Quantocks area, about 25 per cent. of business in the local economy could be attributed to hunting.
Even if the claim by Labour Members that only a few jobs would be lost as a result of a ban were proved right, I do not think that that would make it right for the House to dismiss the cost as unimportant or irrelevant. For many years, it has been our duty to take careful stock before enacting legislation that would make unlawful the livelihoods of people who are going about their legitimate business. During my time here, we have engaged in debates about the impact of the BSE regulations on small occupational groups such as cattle head deboners. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) making the case very strongly. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, we discussed the possible cost, in terms of employment, to manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition.
Even if the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) were right in saying that the cost in terms of jobs would be much less than the Countryside Alliance estimates, I would still contend that we should reflect carefully, and that we should require an overwhelmingly powerful argument to be presented before depriving people of their livelihoods by Act of Parliament.

Mr. David Taylor: If it is right—and it often is—to fight vigorously in the Chamber in defence of jobs, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how vigorously he fought to oppose the large-scale job losses that resulted from the activities of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) under the last Government, when tens of thousands of mining jobs were lost, and there was barely a peep out of Conservative Members?

Mr. Lidington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given an accurate account of the history of that time;


and I think that, in the light of announcements made earlier this week, he should hesitate before heaping contumely on Conservative Administrations for the loss of jobs in the mining industry.
A ban would have a further economic impact, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and which is important to farmers in my constituency and elsewhere. I refer to the disposal of fallen stock. I believe that, in the absence of hunts, that would be a heavy cost for farmers to bear, especially at a time when every sector of British agriculture is in deep and prolonged recession.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the rural community. Does he agree that this is a matter not just of cost—although that is extremely important at a time when farming is under such pressure—but of public health? The collection of fallen stock by hunts, which is carried out on a wide scale, solves a problem that is difficult to solve in other ways.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point.
The contribution of hunts to the disposal of fallen stock was admitted by the Government. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), when he was Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said in a written answer on 25 June 1998 that a survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service had indicated that hunt kennels were responsible for the disposal of well over half the carcases of calves, for more than a third of adult bovine carcases, and for about a quarter of all sheep carcases following falls.
Any hon. Member who has a significant agricultural sector in his or her constituency will know that the problem of fallen stock has become a lot more acute since that MAFF survey, and that the withdrawal of the payment scheme for disposal of new-born calves has added enormously to the burden on hunts and others, who take on the responsibility of disposing of fallen stock. There would be a clear economic cost if the Bill became law.
There would also be damage over the medium to long term to conservation. We know—I think that it is accepted even by most opponents of hunting—that animals such as foxes and deer damage agriculture and forestry. It is common ground between those of us who oppose a ban and a number of those who support a ban that the populations of those animals need to be controlled and that some sort of culling system should be permitted.
The argument for hunting is that culling can be selective, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, and that it provides farmers and landowners with an incentive to maintain habitats in a state that does not add to the productivity of their businesses. Those habitats benefit not only quarry species, but other forms of wildlife.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made the point that the hunt destroys foxes who are injured, elderly or diseased. Therefore, the argument that the hunt is necessary to keep fox populations down and that it is a form of culling is absurd. According to his hon. Friends, it is the healthy fox, the fox that is still in a position to be

able to breed, that inevitably evades and escapes the hunt, so the argument that hunting is a form of culling is clearly absurd.

Sir Richard Body: rose—

Mr. Lidington: May I respond to the hon. Lady first? The point about hunting is that it enables the effective management of the fox population, or, for that matter, in Exmoor and the Quantocks, the deer population. Hunting provides the mechanism whereby those who make their living from agriculture and forestry are prepared to tolerate the presence on their land of a larger number of potentially pest species than would be the case if a ban were in force.

Sir Richard Body: I have simultaneously managed two farms about 10 miles apart. On one, I was happy to see foxes; on the other, I was not. The reason is that, if foxes are fairly young and healthy, they tend to keep down the rat and rabbit population, but, as foxes get older, once they have had a taste of chicken or duck, rather like human beings, they do not want to eat rats. Again, they cease to be useful predators for farmers and become what some us of would call vermin. It is those foxes that tend to be hunted successfully and culled by a pack of foxhounds.

Mr. Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
The conservationist argument for hunting was perhaps best summarised in an article in New Scientist, on 19 April, which stated:
Foxhunting has helped change the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerows and thickets which benefit other wildlife besides the fox. These would disappear if hunting was banned.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: No; I have given way once to the hon. Lady.
The core of the argument made by hon. Members speaking in support of the Bill has been that a ban is justified because it would prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals. Even if one opposes a ban, one has to take that argument seriously. My problem with the way in which those arguments have been expressed so far today is that ban supporters seem to be reflecting very little on the cruelty of alternative methods of animal control.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Before my hon. Friend deals with that very important point, will he say whether he agrees that his point on the balance of nature is fundamental to the argument? Where one finds hunting flourishing, one finds a balance and wide variety of nature. One always finds in such places a healthy fox population, but it is a fox population that is under reasonable control. Such habitats are always diverse and flourishing, not only for foxes, but for a huge range of wildlife—which I think every sensible hon. Member much cherishes in the British countryside.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend puts the case accurately and I agree very much with what he said.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady.
If hunting were banned by law, other methods of pest control would be available to farmers and foresters, such as the currently legal remedies of snaring and shooting. However, both those methods are far less selective than hunting with hounds. Snaring, quite clearly, can involve the trapping not only of a fox, but of any other animal that might be caught in the snare. The snare also makes no distinction between the condition of the animal that it catches, whether the beast is healthy, elderly or unhealthy.
Some Labour Members have said that shooting is the appropriate way of controlling fox and deer populations. Shooting is already legal in some circumstances. However, supporters of a ban seem to be underestimating the difficulty of shooting quick-moving animals such as the fox, and especially animals that are more likely to be out in the open at dusk, at dawn or even at night. It seems to be common sense that the risk of simply wounding such an animal and letting it loose to die a lingering death is very high. I am far from persuaded that there would be any net benefit to animal welfare if the United Kingdom were to outlaw hunting and to rely on shooting as effectively the only control method available to farmers and landowners.
I suspect also that if hunting were to go, we would see pressure—although I should regret it—for the legalisation of gassing and poisoning foxes in certain circumstances. My fear is that, even if those methods were not made lawful, we should discover at least poison being used as a method of illicit control. If we outlawed hunting, we would end up with a system of control that was not selective, was less certain and carried a greater likelihood that an animal would be left wounded to die a lingering and unnecessarily cruel death.
Civil liberties are at the heart of the debate. Whether we like it or not, hunting is an interest or hobby of a large number of people in this country. The total annual attendance at hunt meetings is more than 1.2 million. About 40 per cent. of those are riders and 60 per cent. are hunt followers. There are 302 registered hound packs in the country and the British Equestrian Trade Association estimated last year that about 56,000 horses were used predominantly for hunting. We are talking about making unlawful the leisure-time pursuit of more than 1.25 million of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Gray: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for correcting him on a small factual error that the other side might pick on. There are 1.2 million hunting days enjoyed per year, rather than 1.2 million people.

Mr. Leigh: It is 1.2 million people.

Mr. Lidington: I accept those corrections from my hon. Friends.
The Human Rights Act 1998 has a bearing on the issue. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that have been expressed by those who take part in hunting that the Bill will breach several provisions of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into British law by virtue of that Act. Although the Act has not yet come into force, the Government have adopted the practice of certifying on the front of each Government Bill that they believe that it is compatible with that Act. This private Member's Bill carries no such statement. Has the Home Office made any assessment of whether it is compatible with the commitments that the Government have entered into?

Mr. John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have raised that point at least nine times in relation to private Bills. There is a requirement on the promoter of any Bill to verify that it complies with the European convention on human rights. Conservative Members have opposed that provision for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. I take it that the hon. Gentleman will now ask the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to confirm the congruence of that Bill with the convention.

Mr. Lidington: It is a legitimate matter for the House to consider how it should deal with any proposed requirement for certification of private Bills, which are a different category from private Member's Bills, although the issue also applies to those Bills. It is asking a lot of a Back Bencher to carry out such research unaided on a Bill that they are promoting, but it is legitimate for the House to consider the issue through the usual channels.

Mr. Livingstone: I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers who advised the organisations supporting the Bill assured me that it was fully compliant with the human rights provisions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government have formed a clear opinion on that matter, and whether they agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: No, I will not give way on that point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall the wise observation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made in the debate on 28 November 1997? He said that toleration was not about putting up with activities about which we did not much care one way or the other. He said that that was just apathy, acceptance and neutrality. Toleration, he said, was about allowing to continue activities that the many people who strongly disapproved of them nevertheless recognised should not be subject to criminal sanction.

Mr. Lidington: I agree strongly with that point.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that narrow point?

Mr. Lidington: No. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
The other point on which I should be grateful for the Minister's comments has to do with the Bill's impact on the police force. The Bill would impose new criminal penalties on many fellow citizens, and the police would have to ensure that the legislation was enforced. The Bill provides for powers of arrest, property searches and so on. Have the police made representations to the Home Office about the resource and manpower implications of implementing the Bill?
I doubt that the Home Secretary would consider enforcing this measure a high priority for the police. I am pretty certain that my constituents, regardless of whether they support a hunting ban, would prefer their already stretched police to catch burglars and street robbers. They would not want them to be tramping around open fields in capes and gumboots trying to apprehend people chasing foxes with hounds.

Sir Richard Body: We in Lincolnshire have that very problem. Illegal coursing is pretty cruel and nasty and a lot of it goes on. The people taking part are often violent, and there have been many assaults on the farmers and farm workers who have tried to restrain them. The police have been asked to intervene over and over again, but they always say that they are so overstretched that officers cannot be allocated for the duty.
It used to be that officers were so allocated, and helicopters were used to catch the people involved. However, Government cuts in the police force mean that there are no longer enough officers to deal with existing animal welfare crimes in the county. It would be hopeless to expect the police to implement the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and the situation that he describes prevails in many parts of the country.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: rose—

Mr. Lidington: The Bill would make criminal the lawful behaviour of a large number of fellow citizens. If a similar measure were to be proposed in respect of almost any other minority, Labour Members would lead the outcry against it. The promoters and supporters of the Bill should be careful. I fear that they underestimate the anger and resentment that the Bill is already provoking among decent, law-abiding people who believe that it abuses Parliament's power to make law.

Mr. Gardiner: rose—

Mr. Lidington: I believe, that as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham put it, the definition of a liberal society is one in which we are prepared to defend not just the interests of those with whom we sympathise and agree but of those minorities from whom we differ and of whom we disapprove.
I believe that the Bill is misguided and wrong. If it comes to a Division, I shall vote against it.

1 pm

Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have had such opportunities before. The Bill promoted by my

hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which unfortunately did not pass into law, attracted some interest, it is fair to say, in the Chamber.
I am also pleased to have an opportunity to witness the use of a procedural device. I am still not sure whether it was designed wholly to have this Bill debated today or to cause embarrassment for others. However, I welcome the fact that we are debating it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is here; I enjoyed the time that we spent together in Committee, knocking down the arguments from Conservative Members and, of course, the rogue Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I am sure is a bit of an embarrassment to his party.

Sir Robert Smith: May I make it clear that none of the Members of the House who carry the Liberal Democrat Whip is an embarrassment to our party?

Mr. Salter: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong? They are a cause of deep embarrassment.
I wish to look briefly at the arguments in favour of hunting wild animals with hounds. We have had some ludicrous claims from the Countryside Alliance and the pro-hunt lobby about the number of job losses. It put the figure at 16,000. I understand that in a press statement last week, the Countryside Alliance made the crucial admission that there may have been a slight exaggeration. I think that the Burns inquiry will show that it was more than a slight exaggeration—it was probably a bare-faced lie. We shall wait and see.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman uses rather extreme language, and I hope that the Burns inquiry comes up with figures that are as close to accurate as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of lying when I say that to the best of my knowledge, the full-time equivalent of 11,400 people are employed directly by hunts. A further 4,000 or thereabouts provide the other services that hunts need. Roughly speaking, 15,000 or 16,000 people seems to be the best estimate. For him to accuse the Countryside Alliance of lying is extraordinary.

Mr. Salter: Well, I did, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. The facts are quite straightforward. About 1,000 people are directly employed by hunts. Let us wait until the Burns inquiry comes out. We will also have to weigh the beneficial effects of a potential transfer to drag-hunting and other forms of pursuing this so-called sport before we can make an accurate assessment of the likely job losses to result if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salter: No. I will lay the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) a small wager that the figure will be nothing like 16,000.
I dealt with the argument about jobs as best I could in my earlier intervention by quoting the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I should like now to deal with the argument that hunting with hounds is an essential pest-control tool. If it is effective, why do members of the pro-hunting lobby


constantly tell us that hunts do not really matter, because they rarely catch anything? Either hunting is an effective tool for pest control, or it is not.
The fact that drives a coach and horses through the pest control argument is that hunts, such as the Sinnington and others, continue to breed cubs in order to hunt.

Mr. Tony Banks: Of course, there is also an argument about the close season. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are talking about dealing with vermin, it is nonsense to suggest that there is a close season? We would not decide not to put down mouse traps at certain times of the year, if our houses were infested with mice—as is this House, on the ground and on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It had not occurred to me that there could be any logic for a close season in hunting.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: With respect, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) does not make a very good point. Does the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) agree that we want a balance of nature so that a reasonable number of foxes live healthily in the countryside without causing a problem? To compare that with the extermination of mice and rats in a domestic house is not fair or sensible.

Mr. Salter: I am struggling to follow the logic of that argument. We are being told that we want a balance of nature—so we must breed and then kill foxes to achieve it. I am sorry, but I cannot follow that logic.

Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a balance of nature was really required, simply to hunt and kill those foxes that were already lame and about to die—as some hon. Members have described the matter—would not assist in producing it. Only if we killed the foxes that were healthy and able to breed—the very ones that we have been told get away—would it make any sense to pursue that means of vermin control.

Mr. Salter: I am trying to follow the logic. Some hon. Members are trying to convince us that we should give the fox a fertility test before we hunt and kill it, so as to achieve the balance of nature.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not want to add to the burden of my hon. Friend's attempts to find a way through the illogicalities, but is there not a further illogicality? If one accepts the argument that the only foxes killed by hunting are those that are old, diseased or lame, why does it take a hunt so long to catch them? Why do hunts engage in activities specifically designed to prolong the hunt?

Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Later in my contribution, which was intended to be short, I shall refer to the havoc caused by hunts.
One problem is that hunts are not confined to fields but stray on to roads and railway lines. It is a miracle that they ever manage to catch foxes. That is why it is nonsense to

claim that this so-called sport has anything to do with pest control. I should have more respect for hunters and their Conservative supporters if they did not make such claims.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend endorse the conclusions of research into control of the fox population, which suggest that the population is largely self-balancing? If foxes are vigorously hunted, leaving only a small number in a large terrain, they will breed more frequently and produce larger litters. If the population grows larger than can be supported by the terrain, the animals breed less frequently and produce smaller litters.

Mr. Salter: I am sure that that is so, but I am also sure that there is a case for pest control in certain circumstances. Let us be in no doubt—we farm the land, putting animals on the land to produce food for ourselves, and that upsets the balance of nature.
On a humane alternative to hunting or, as I would prefer to put it, a sensible method of pest control, let me tell the House a short anecdote. Before the general election, I was involved with many other colleagues in campaigning for—

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend had a proper job then.

Mr. Salter: I did.
I was campaigning for the House and the Labour party to take the issue of a hunt ban seriously. We were collecting signatures in Broad street in Reading, and we had no problem whatever in attracting the support of the local population for a ban on hunting. In fact, I believe that most Members will concur that by far the largest amount of mail that they have received on any one issue in this Parliament has been that in support of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Salter: I should like to develop this point; then I shall be happy to take an intervention.
I was genuinely surprised that one fellow signed the petition. He was a gamekeeper, working on a rural Berkshire estate. This was a person whose job depended on the countryside. I asked him. "Why do you support the campaign against fox hunting?" and he replied, "Mr. Salter, hunts will often protect areas to allow foxes to breed so that the hunt will have a quarry to hunt." That simple fact drives a coach and horses through the pro-hunt lobby's argument. I asked the gamekeeper, "What is the alternative for humanely controlling the fox population where it is necessary?" and he said to me, "If you want to put a fox down, you can shoot it. We are gamekeepers; we are professionals. We rarely miss, and we know our job. That is the humane way to control foxes where they are pests."

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Salter: I give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and many gamekeepers would say exactly what he describes


his Reading gamekeeper as having said. He has just arrived and was not in the Chamber when I made this point earlier, so I shall repeat it. One need only look at a big shooting area, such as Norfolk, where the gamekeepers are concerned about pheasants, to see the entire obliteration of the fox population. The Game Conservancy Trust says that there are now no foxes in the big shooting areas in Norfolk. That is because hunting is a selective culling method of killing foxes, whereas shooting obliterates the entire species.

Mr. Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure of the relationship between pheasant shooting and the deliberate professional culling of foxes that are proving to be a pest.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Salter: I will take no more interventions; I want to conclude.
I want to touch on the libertarian arguments that were pursued primarily by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. All societies draw a line somewhere in controlling the activities of the population, by legalising or outlawing certain activities. The age at which sexual activity between consenting persons is deemed lawful is an example. The fact that we are in favour of lowering the age of consent, be it for heterosexuals or homosexuals, be it from 21 to 18 or from 18 to 16, shows that we are prepared to draw a line in the sand. It does not mean that we are in favour of anything else. I am afraid that the libertarian arguments that are advanced by the pro-hunt lobby are exactly the same arguments that are used to justify badger baiting, otter hunting and cockfighting.
I shall now discuss a related point. I am a fisherman and enjoy country sports. I do not speak as a townie who does not spend much time in the country. I should like to know how a pack of hounds on the scent of a mink can distinguish between a mink and an otter when they are hunting on the river bank. We are reintroducing otters to the river banks of our countryside, which is great, but they are threatened by the existence of minkhounds, because we all know perfectly well that hounds cannot distinguish between mink and otter scent, and otters face further extermination if hunting is allowed to continue.
It is nonsense to say, as many people do, that if hunting goes, fishing and other sports will be next. As I said, we choose to draw a line in the sand, and members of the pro-hunt lobby would love to use my sport and the sport of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for their own ends. They would love to use the fact that there are 3 million of us and that we have votes, by telling us that our sport is under threat. However, Labour Members have worked hard with the angling organisations. We have made it perfectly clear to them, and they respond. The future of angling, especially coarse fishing, in this country lies with the environmental lobby. Anglers should join Greenpeace, not the Countryside Alliance.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Salter: I am not giving way.
It was interesting that the latest opinion polls showed that coarse fishermen and women were as opposed to the barbaric sports of fox and stag hunting as the rest of the

population. All the attempts by Opposition Members and the pro-hunt lobby to pray anglers in aid to defend their views will not work.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, I have seen the New Forest draghounds. I was appalled at the intimidation and the bullying that the master of those draghounds experienced at the hands of the fox and stag-hunting fraternity. He was blackballed, outlawed and discriminated against, because he had taken a brave decision that was triggered by the deliberate execution of hounds elsewhere. He showed that there is a viable alternative.
Fox and stag hunting with hounds are cruel and barbaric sports on a par with cock fighting and badger baiting. They have no place in 21st-century Britain and it is time that we ended them.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to contribute to the debate, but I wish to comment on its timing and the tactics deployed by Labour Members. This week, the House has seen the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether new Labour's and the Government's reaction to so-called freedom of information was that the first motion on a day available for private Members' business proposed that the House should meet in private? I am sure that those who have witnessed the debate will take a dim view of that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on securing the place that he did in the ballot. However—if I may use the term—I accuse him of being on a slight ego trip; the Bill's timing is an entirely cynical electioneering ploy. Perhaps I should also congratulate him on that timing.
I have expressed my disappointment that the hon. Gentleman's approach to the Bill is from the very narrow viewpoint of animal welfare. I wish to put on the record my commitment to animal welfare. Those Members who are interested may like to know that my curriculum vitae show that animal welfare is one of my great interests. I also draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' interests, which shows that I own a modest co-share in a farm in the north of England—in Teesdale, County Durham. Regrettably, I do not have the time to engage in country pursuits, but I hope that the farm has given me an understanding of the countryside.
In my previous career, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was your Member of the European Parliament. On several occasions, I participated actively in the Parliament's all-party animal welfare group, and I represented Brightlingsea at the time when the movement of live animals was attracting a great deal of attention. I do not think that any hon. Member could doubt my concern for animal welfare.
I shall explain why I think that hunting is the least cruel and most humane form of killing a fox. Not only is it the most effective method, but the alternatives are more painful, more cruel and less humane.
I want to consider the role of the hunt and hunting in the countryside. It is clear that foxes are a pest and I regret that the hon. Member for Brent, East lost his pet tortoise to a fox. As hon. Members will be aware, foxes are increasingly leaving the countryside and coming into towns. I am not advocating that the four hunts and several


beagle packs in the Vale of York should move to Westminster to eradicate hares and foxes, but I am sure that it is a source of great concern to the Prime Minister and others with positions of responsibility in Whitehall that several ducks have been killed by foxes that are hiding under the temporary huts erected for the building works. I cannot remember the correct term for those huts.

Mr. Livingstone: Portakabins.

Miss McIntosh: Indeed, portakabins, which are made in North Yorkshire, just outside the Vale of York. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Although I do not suggest that hunts should relocate to Westminster to eradicate pests, hon. Members will be only too aware of the damage that foxes do to all animals, including pet tortoises and rare ducks.
To my knowledge, no hon. Member has considered the duty that the hunt performs, in the absence of large numbers of knackers' yards in rural areas, in disposing of fallen stock. I am sure that hon. Members with rural constituencies will be aware that such disposal is an increasing problem. More than 400,000 carcases have to be disposed of each year, and for the most part—the Vale of York is no exception—they are collected and disposed of by hunts. The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that, if that activity were undertaken by others, the cost would be £36 million a year.

Mr. Gardiner: I am interested to hear that the hon. Lady thinks that the hunt performs such a valuable service in collecting carcases. Has she estimated the number of new jobs that might be created in that service once the hunts have disappeared?

Miss McIntosh: As I was not expecting to have to share that information with the House today, I am not in a position to answer that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) can do so.

Mr. Gray: Between 400,000 and 600,000 calf carcases had to be disposed of this winter because of the appalling catastrophe in the dairy and beef industries. Those carcases are worth only a few pennies, and putting in an ear tag costs £5. A recent circular from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acknowledged that if the hunts did not remove the carcases, farmers would, regrettably, seek to bury them on their farms, with possibly catastrophic environmental consequences.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is not quite the point that was raised. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will hear me out, I will make a conservative estimate and say that the number of jobs that would be created by the need to dispose of carcases would not reach 11,000, which is the figure for hunt employment that my hon. Friend quoted earlier.
I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Brent, East for simply having no understanding of the countryside or rural issues. Many Conservative Members admire his contributions, which are not always in keeping with those of his colleagues. I am slightly amused by the position that he is occupying today. I had thought that he might

join the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and we could have had a leadership contest for the independents party as represented in the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has joined me in saying, in the normal course of farming, cattle and calves, sheep and lambs, goats, horses, ponies and foals die each year and have to be disposed of. Opposition Members would not want to face an environmental problem were the hunt to disappear. We would argue vigorously in favour of keeping the hunt for that task, which it performs so adequately.
It is a source of great regret to me that the knacker's yard no longer exists. The year in which my husband and I were married, our family pony, a half-Shetland and half-Welsh pony, had reached the staggering age of 36. It was a source of great sadness that the month before we were married, the animal had to be disposed of.
As I mentioned earlier, the Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that, by disposing of fallen stock, the hunt's contribution saves farmers £36 million. The hon. Member for Brent, East has not recognised that and—I stand to be corrected on this—has not proposed a viable alternative to the role of the hunt in disposing of dead stock. Farmers and landowners are worried that the hon. Gentleman may even be accusing them of not being as actively concerned about animal welfare as he is. The loss of his pet tortoise suggests—

Mr. Livingstone: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As I said earlier, I do not believe that the debate is an issue of class or an issue between rural and urban areas. The vast majority of people in every sector of society oppose hunting because they regard it as cruel. As we know, analysis of opinion polls shows that even in the 7 per cent. of Britain that is most rural, a large majority of those living there are oppose to hunting.

Miss McIntosh: There the hon. Gentleman and I must agree to disagree. I believe that other methods are more cruel and less humane.
I shall move on, as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. Will the Minister tell us the position of the Government and the Prime Minister on the Bill? The Prime Minister set up the Burns committee, and I understand from a leak released to the media this week that he intends to offer hon. Members a multi-choice questionnaire. It will be interesting to see whether all hon. Members will have the opportunity to express their choice.
I understand that we, or at least Labour Members, will be presented with four options: the abolition of hunting, as the Bill proposes; an alternative method of killing or controlling foxes; the licensing of hunts, which would continue to meet under strictly controlled conditions; or the status quo. In the event that I am not asked, I want to record my personal preference for no change. We should reject the Bill today and await the findings of the Burns committee.
I believe that there was confusion earlier on the Government Benches. Not only was the hon. Member for Brent, East not in his place at the time of the Division this morning, but he was not in the precincts of the Palace. There was some concern that we would move on to the third Bill—

Mr. Livingstone: I understand that there is a lot of conspiracy going on, so let me clarify the position. I was


approached by a Government Whip earlier this week to check that I would be available from 9.30 this morning, and I gave that assurance. When I arrived at 9.10, I went straight to my office. I did not happen to see any other hon. Members, so a suggestion may have gone round that I was not in the building. But if anyone wants to check, the staff at Norman Shaw North will say that I arrived in the precincts at 9.10. So there is no conspiracy and no stress—just good fortune all round.

Miss McIntosh: Good fortune for the hon. Gentleman, but poor management by the Government.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has made it clear that the Government were party to the disgraceful action this morning that denied my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr.Duncan Smith)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Dismore: rose—

Miss McIntosh: I shall take no more interventions, because I wish to conclude.
The Government's approach to the Bill is a kneejerk reaction to a poor turnout in recent elections, especially in Labour heartlands. [Interruption.] In last year's European elections, there was a turnout of only 11 per cent. in Barnsley. where the Labour party had convincingly won a by-election in the previous year. In one ward in Sunderland. which is staunchly Labour, there was again a turnout of only 11 per cent. The Government are therefore tackling the wrong issue if they want to pacify their heartlands. [Interruption.] In trying to do that, they ignore at their peril the voice of the countryside.
More than 300,000 participated in the countryside march; more than 120,000 took part in the countryside rally in July 1997—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) cannot conduct a committee meeting while the debate is in progress. I have also heard quite enough from a sedentary position from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I hope that he will now keep quiet.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing attention to a persistent lack of courtesy from certain quarters.
The presence of huge numbers on the marches to which I referred reflects the rural voice, and the depth and breadth of anxiety about the threat to rural life as we know it and the natural pursuits of the countryside.
I oppose the Bill mainly because of its infringement of personal liberty. The Bill would lead to losses of rights and personal freedom, and would encroach on the tolerant, free and open society that we know in this country. The right to hunt or not to hunt is a matter of choice. Foxes are pests, do wanton damage to farms and livestock, and increasingly move from farms to towns.
I passionately believe that, in the countryside, fox hunting is the most efficient and humane way of controlling the fox population. I was elected on a platform of toleration and choice, individual freedom and my personal strong support for the natural pursuits of the countryside. I therefore oppose the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As is customary, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on securing a place in the ballot. Doubtless, he took account of the views of his constituents before deciding to introduce a Bill to outlaw hunting. Hon Members will know the considerable interest that the issue generates in all parts of the country, rural and urban—and even in Brent, East.
I represent a predominantly rural constituency with a large hunt, the Atherstone hunt, which many people join. I visited its kennels early last year to explain why I personally would support a ban. The Government want a free vote on the matter.
The hon. Member for Brent, East has provided the House with an explanation of the Bill. Its intentions are straightforward and clear. It would put a stop, in most circumstances, to hunting with dogs, especially fox hunting. It would also make it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to allow hunting on his land, and for anyone to own or control dogs for hunting purposes.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister clarify the extent of the Bill? Does he share my anxiety that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is trying to legislate for Scotland when the House has decided that Scottish affairs should be properly determined by the Scottish Parliament? Is it not odd that someone who wants to be mayor of London steps over the mark on constitutional propriety?

Mr. O'Brien: Fox hunting is a devolved matter and, following the introduction of a private Member's Bill by a Labour MSP, I understand that the Scottish Parliament will discuss some of the issues. The hon. Member for Brent, East might take that into account.

Mr. Livingstone: I am happy to do that.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indication that he is prepared to consider amending his private Member's Bill.
During the 1997–98 Session, a free vote took place in the House during proceedings on a similar Bill to outlaw hunting with dogs, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). It received a Second Reading by 411 votes to 151 and was dealt with in Committee, but my hon. Friend withdrew it before it could reach its Report stage and receive its Third Reading, because he recognised that no further progress could be made.
Following that Bill's demise, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 11 November last year that the Government would offer reasonable time, if necessary, for the House to debate hunting through consideration of a private Member's Bill on a free vote. Assistance with drafting was also offered for a private Member's Bill such


as this. However, the House will know that, before any legislation was considered, the Government decided that there should first be an inquiry—a fact-finding exercise.
It became clear to us from the discussions on the way forward that the facts about the hunting of fox, deer, mink and hare and the consequences of any ban needed to be properly considered. Indeed, to some extent, the fact that some hon. Members have had to say that they "believe" something to be the case, owing to the absence of a substantial factual basis, makes our point. There is no core of factual consensus around which the rest of the argument can revolve, which is not the case with other debates. That is why we thought it appropriate for an inquiry to examine the factual core and give a view on it. The debate could then proceed.
The inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is under way and well into its work. It has already taken evidence from various interested parties. Members of the inquiry have visited more than 13 hunting events to familiarise themselves with the activity. In connection with their work, they have attended six fox hunts involving foot and mounted packs; hind hunting with the Devon and Somerset staghounds; and hare-hunting events. Some also attended the Waterloo cup meeting at Altcar, which followers of hare coursing regard as the premier event.
On each visit, observers accompanied inquiry members from the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000, the umbrella group campaigning for a ban on hunting. The role of Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 members was to advise the inquiry team members as necessary and to provide reassurance that the inquiry team saw hunting activities as they would normally take place.
The inquiry has also commissioned a number of studies by relevant experts into a number of areas of life affected by hunting. Lord Burns has said that he expects to complete his work and report by the end of next month and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that he will present the report to Parliament. With the agreement of the business managers, it is hoped that the House will be given an opportunity to discuss it after publication.

Mr. Banks: We await the Burns report with great interest and Labour Members do not object to the inquiry, but would it not have been more helpful, and a statement of our good faith, if we had said before the election that we would establish a committee? Some people may think that we have used the inquiry as a delaying tactic. It would be wrong if the Parliament ended without our having done what we said we were going to do, which was to listen and to act on a ban on fox hunting.

Mr. O'Brien: The commitment in our manifesto was to a free vote, which took place on the private Member's Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. Many hon. Members rightly felt that there should be another opportunity to deal with this matter. It soon became clear during our consideration of the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that there was a lack of factual consensus around which the debate could crystallise, so that the issues could become clearer. That is why, after the election, the

Government took the view that a report from an inquiry would be of assistance. That is a logical and reasonable position to take.

Mr. Tom King: In case the Minister feels that his position is not supported and that the attitude being taken is, "To hell with the facts; let's get on with it," I can tell him that I think that the Burns inquiry is going about its work in a sensible and balanced way. It has visited my constituency, where there is hunting with a pack of staghounds. The inquiry team has met people and bodies that support hunting and those opposed to it. My understanding is that such meetings have been conducted in a civilised and sensible way by people on both sides of the argument who are anxious that the facts should be properly established.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the inquiry will better inform the debate by reporting on the practical issues involved in hunting, how a ban could be implemented and what the consequences of a ban would be. The inquiry is not being asked to decide whether hunting should be banned. That is a decision for the House, and hon. Members in proper consultation with their constituents. My right hon. and hon. Friends will have a free vote on this issue, but it will muddy the waters if we deal with a ban on hunting with dogs before Lord Burns has produced his report. It is sensible to consider the issue in the light of the inquiry's report.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given the House a number of undertakings, and has set out a sensible sequence of events. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Brent, East said that, if it were possible and if it were the will of the House, he would bring his Bill out of Committee after the inquiry has reported. We shall see how the Bill progresses.

Mr. Leigh: I seek clarification. Are the Government saying that, if the Bill gets into Committee, they will give it time on Report?

Mr. O'Brien: We shall have to await the outcome of events, but the Government will play an entirely straight bat and will ensure that the matter is dealt with properly. The Bill is now a Bill of the House—it is not just an individual Member's Bill. The House has possession of it and it is a matter for the House to decide. However, the Government have given their view, and I cannot take that any further. It is clear to the House that we are prepared to offer a private Member's Bill reasonable time and assistance after the conclusion of the inquiry.
I shall deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who asked about the Human Rights Act 1998. I have seen no advice that the Human Rights Act would be breached by this ban any more than by any other ban on an activity that the House of Commons chose to regard as animal cruelty. I am not aware of any reason why this measure might breach the Human Rights Act.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the implications of the ban for the police force. It is for a chief constable to determine his operational priorities, but my experience is that those who hunt are, by and large, law-abiding people. The police have not suggested to the Government that


the Bill should not be passed for reasons connected with resources, and I do not believe that hunters will break the law, no matter how much they threaten to do so now because they are angry. I think that, in due course, hunters, like all of us, will obey the law.
Let me also point out that police resources currently devoted to dealing with hunt saboteurs could be released for other purposes—including, no doubt, the tackling of offences mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, such as burglary.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way once more, but after that I must make progress.

Mr. Blunt: I think the Minister is being a little sanguine about the reaction to the banning of an activity that has been justified in animal welfare terms. People know that the arguments in favour of a ban are bogus, and that animals will be worse off as a result of the Bill.
We are talking about a pastime that is central to many people's way of life in the countryside. I must tell the Minister that if my passion, which is cricket, were taken from me, and I considered that to be grossly unjustified—and people who hunt will think a ban on hunting grossly unjustified—I would probably be prepared to go to prison to demonstrate my opposition to what I would deem a gross illiberality.

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Not at this point.
if we accepted the idea that minority rights must always be protected regardless of other issues, we would never change anything. There is always some minority that wants to continue to do something, and we cannot allow a minority to have a permanent veto.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is not present, because I want to deal with a couple of the points that he raised. When bull baiting was banned in the last century,?The Times published a leader condemning the ban on the grounds that it denied the rights of a minority to bait bulls. That is not acceptable. The rights of minorities are important, but they must be balanced against other social values. With rights come responsibilities, and allowing minorities to continue to do something that is deeply offensive to the rest of the community—perhaps because they oppose cruelty to animals—merits at least a discussion of whether there should be legislation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who has now returned, also mentioned fishing and a number of other sports. The Government oppose a ban on fishing or shooting: indeed, the Labour party has published a policy statement supporting fishing opportunities. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking allies among those involved in pursuits other than fox hunting, suggesting to them that

they, too, may be under threat. I understand that tactic, but the threat does not exist. There will be no ban on shooting or fishing under the present Government.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I have given way a number of times, but I cannot resist the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so I will give way for the last time.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister says that fishing and shooting will not be banned. Does he not agree that, before a civilised society bans a lawful activity widely practised among members of that society—albeit a minority—there must be a powerful, objectively justifiable reason for the ban, such as inherent cruelty?

Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree that there must be a powerful argument for change of that kind. Those among the majority who voted for the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester believed that such a powerful argument had been made. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees or disagrees with that is a matter for him; we are here to debate such issues.
I agreed with a couple of other points that were made by the hon. Member for Brent, East. It is not a class issue. It is not a countryside-versus-town issue. The issue is how the individual rights of those who pursue hunting should be balanced against the issue of cruelty to animals.
Hunting is not the main concern in most rural areas, including mine. Hunting with hounds is very much a minority pastime, even in areas where there are historic hunts. Farming, rural transport, village post offices and other matters are much more important to most people who live in the countryside.
Those people are concerned about having good schools, especially good village schools, and good hospitals. They want to ensure that crime is kept low, that interest rates are low and that there is better rural transport. All those issues are enormously important to people in rural areas. Many of them are also concerned—as people throughout the country are—with issues relating to animals. Many care deeply about that, whether they are on one side of the argument or the other. It is right that we should debate those issues in this place because they are important and people care about them, but it is wrong for some to portray the argument as one of town versus country.
Labour Members represent more rural constituencies than the Tories and Liberal Democrats put together. That is why the Government will work hard to deal with the priorities of all people who live in rural areas, as well as those who live in towns.
The Government promised a free vote on a ban on fox hunting. That vote has taken place, but we want to give Members a further opportunity to vote. The Bill assists that process. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East on introducing the Bill, and commend to the House the Government's approach.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I want to give a slightly different emphasis from that in previous speeches. Everyone who has contributed—indeed, most of those who contributed in previous debates—whether they be opposed to hunting, or, on libertarian grounds, support the


right of people to hunt, have tended to say, "I do not hunt myself." There was a powerful intervention—indeed, a powerful speech—by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), a powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and a powerful speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). All were on the basis that they did not hunt themselves. I must now declare an interest: I do hunt and have hunted, beagling as a younger man and, more recently, fox hunting.
I say honestly that I do not and have not hunted primarily because I saw myself as a pest-control officer. I hunted because I wanted to hunt and because it was—I have to admit it—an extraordinarily challenging sport. There is no greater test of a rider's horsemanship skills than attempting to stay in the saddle for five hours during a hunt, so I admit that. I have been hunting and have enjoyed it. I found it very challenging.
At the same time, I must confess that, although I have hunted on many occasions—beagling and, subsequently, fox hunting—I never witnessed a kill. I hope that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept it when I say that those of us who hunt do not do so because we want to be part of the kill; the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to admit the point. There may be a tiny minority who do—I do not know—but on the whole that is no part of the sport. There is no bloodlust. We hunt because we find it a challenging sport. It tests our riding abilities. It is also a unique aspect of really coming to terms with the countryside.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: No; I should like to develop this point a bit.
There is no other way—it is very hard to describe this, although it has been described very movingly in writings by Siegfried Sassoon and others—in which one can really understand the countryside, the way that it works, the animal kingdom and how the seasons evolve than by going hunting.
I accept that many Labour Members oppose the sport very passionately and think that those of us who hunt are engaged in a very cruel activity. However, I ask them to accept our point of view, and that bloodlust is not part of our motivation at all. We wish to be part of the British countryside, which we love from the depths of our souls, and feel that hunting is the best way of doing so.

Mr. Gardiner: I have listened most carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he accept that, although one may not participate for motives of bloodlust, none the less, even without that motivation, an activity may in itself perpetrate a cruelty?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman makes an arguable point. However, I shall try to explain why I believe that foxhunting is not a cruel sport and that the House should not be persuaded to override the rights of a minority.

Mr. Gray: Like my hon. Friend, I take part in fox hunting. Unlike him, however—and despite the age and decrepitude of the horse that I sometimes have to ride—I have very often been present at the kill. I have rarely seen a more humane way of killing any animal.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend at least speaks from experience. He has made an important contribution to the debate.
I myself could not participate in drag-hunting, about which there has been much debate. Drag-hunting is a quite different sport. It is very fast and very much a sport for young people. The type of sport that we have in north Lincolnshire involves very little jumping. It moves very slowly, from copse to copse, and walks round the edges of ploughed fields. Drag-hunting is quite different from that. Those who argue that all of us who hunt could simply transfer to drag-hunting—regardless of whether farmers would let us drag-hunt over their land; most farmers see no benefit at all in drag-hunting—are making a spurious argument.
Those who talk about drag-hunting are not being entirely honest. It would be more honest if they said, "We don't want your sport. We are going to abolish it."

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend may not know it, but I am chairman of one of the two organisations that represent drag-hunting in the United Kingdom. Today, we have decided to issue a challenge to any hon. Member who supports the Bill and persists in saying that drag-hunting is an alternative. The challenge is to find the places where we can hunt. The hunt of which I am chairman and have been master is desperately seeking more places to hunt. The fact is that one has to find 20 to 25 farmers with farms in a continual line of countryside who will accept 30 or 40 horses galloping across their land, inevitably causing damage to crops. It is simply not practical to call for any extension of drag-hunting.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend speaks from great experience, and we have made that point.

Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend moves on from that point, would he care to explain to the House how drag-hunting would be of use in the lake district and the mountains, where on most occasions when the hunt is called out, it is to deal with foxes that are killing farmers lambs? How would drag-hunting deal with that problem?

Mr. Leigh: It would not. My right hon. Friend has made that powerful point.
Let us be clear about the facts. There is an annual attendance at hunts of 1,289,000 people—of whom 42 per cent. are riders and 58 per cent. are foot followers. The sport involves, therefore, not a small minority, but a quite large minority.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister and other Labour Members have made the point that, although minorities have rights, there is a limit to those rights. However, we are talking about a very large group indeed—over 1 million people.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I want to make progress. Before we take away the rights of more than 1 million people, we have to listen to some of the points that my hon. Friends have made.

Mr. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way, at least for the moment.

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman is tolerant and wishes to intervene later, I shall give way to him.
Surely Labour Members should admit that there is some merit in the point that the test of a tolerant society is not just whether we allow an activity to persist because we are apathetic about it—we can all do that—but whether we allow an activity to carry on even though we want nothing to do with it and dislike it intensely. So often, our society and our Parliament have been deeply intolerant of minority opinions and even faiths and deeply held beliefs. We have moved on from that. Surely we are now sufficiently broadminded to believe that if 1 million law-abiding people are carrying on an activity that they have undertaken and enjoyed since time immemorial, they have certain rights.

Mr. David Taylor: Is not the hon. Gentleman basing his argument on a statistical fallacy? A parallel could be drawn with aggregate attendances at first-class football matches in England and Scotland on any given Saturday—a figure of nearly 1.5 million. If we add that together for the whole season by multiplying it by 40, we end up with a number of people supporting the game of football that exceeds the population of these beautiful islands.

Mr. Leigh: The fact is that a large number of people enjoy hunting. During a year there are 1 million attendances at hunt events. Even if I was wrong and the figure was only three quarters of a million, half a million or a quarter of a million, it would make no difference to the argument that they have rights, too. They are not engaging in the activity because of bloodlust or because they are sadistic. They engage in it because they are country people who want to be part of a traditional country sport. I believe that they have certain rights that we, as a tolerant society, should respect. We should not allow the tyranny of the majority to overcome the rights of the minority. Regardless of whether that minority numbers half a million, a quarter of a million or a million, it is a large number of people. Their rights should be respected. Whatever other arguments Labour Members adduce, that is the one argument that they, particularly as Labour party members, cannot ignore.
Quite apart from the arguments about tolerance and respect for the rights of minorities, if we were going to abolish the activity, we would have to have a clear view that abolition would result in less cruelty to foxes. The overwhelming evidence is that shooting depends on terrain and is affected by the weather and is an inefficient and often cruel way of disposing of foxes. Trapping and snaring can

be equally cruel. The fox—or another creature who gets trapped—could remain in the trap for 24 hours and suffer a great deal.
All the other options are equally or more cruel. Those who argue for the abolition of hunting have not been able to adduce a single argument that suggests that many farmers will not continue to exterminate foxes. Shooting, trapping and snaring are cruel activities.
There have been many arguments about whether hunting is an efficient form of culling. Opponents of the Bill say that only 16,000 foxes a year are killed by hunting, but that it is a necessary form of pest control. That seems a powerful argument, but the more powerful argument concerns the environment, and states that fox hunting ensures that the species is protected.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made one of the best points in the debate when he said that Norfolk, where foxes are shot, has no fox population left. Fox-hunting counties such as Lincolnshire and Leicestershire have healthy and balanced fox populations.
It is not a question merely of being in favour of the rights of minorities, or of whether there are better alternatives to hunting: we must accept that hunting maintains a healthy fox population.

Ms Glenda Jackson: If fox hunting maintains environments in the countryside that benefit fox populations, why are the animals increasingly moving to urban areas? Foxes live and breed in my garden, for example, and the urban population of foxes is increasing. If hunting creates such a wonderful environment for foxes, why are they leaving it?

Mr. Leigh: That point is so obtuse that I shall not argue it, despite my respect for the hon. Lady. Fox hunting does not increase the number of foxes and thus force them to go to Hampstead. It ensures that there is a balanced population of foxes in those areas where it is practised. People who live in the country treat foxes as vermin, and will shoot, gas, poison, trap and snare them rather than allow them to continue their depredations.
This country has the healthiest fox population in the world. People like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) say that their primary concern is animal welfare, but what is the answer to that point? Why does this apparently cruel, inefficient and bad sport lead us to have the healthiest, largest and most well-balanced fox population in Europe? Why is it well balanced? That is thanks to fox hunting and to the people who—like me—pursue it as a sport.

Mr. Bob Russell: Sport?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has just come in and will not have heard what I said earlier. We do it as a sport but it has a beneficial aspect. It ensures good conservation, and that the fox population is maintained. It ensures that foxes are not generally disposed of in a cruel way.
On those grounds, the Bill should be rejected.

Mr. James Gray: Fox hunting always arouses great passion on both sides of the argument, more than almost any other subject debated in this Chamber. I regret that, and welcome the establishment of the Burns inquiry. I hope that it will get rid of all the passion, emotion and bias, and pay no heed to the class war aspect to which some hon. Members have alluded.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) talked about foxes being disembowelled. That is absurd, and such emotive language does not help a sensible, quiet debate.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I shall be happy to give way to one of the more emotional Members of Parliament.

Mr. Banks: I am emotional, but not tired and emotional, and I agree that this is a very emotive subject. If the Burns inquiry produced a report that states that no jobs will be at risk if fox hunting were banned, would the hon. Gentleman accept that and support a ban? Could anything convince him that it should be banned?

Mr. Gray: Like the Minister, I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of the Burns inquiry. However, the inquiry will not consider the morality of fox hunting. That is for the House to decide. The important thing about the Bums inquiry is that it will introduce factual information and quiet consideration into the debate. We can then make a decision about what we believe to be moral or immoral.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the Royal Artillery Fox Hounds at Larkhill. I hunt with them regularly, and hope to be out with them tomorrow morning. In my constituency there are four packs of foxhounds—the Beaufort, the Avon Vale, the VWH, while the Tedworth is nearby. There is also a pack of beagles in my constituency. I am also chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee, the non-party body of the House that looks into the taxation effects on the horse industry, and has made a submission to Lord Burns. I am an unpaid consultant—all these interests are unpaid—to the British Horse Industry Confederation, which has made a powerful submission to the Burns inquiry.
We must get rid of the emotion and get back to the facts. Perhaps I could touch on some of the great benefits that fox hunting has given the country. Many Labour Members have poured scorn on the argument that hunting helps control pests. The National Farmers Union and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have both acknowledged the strong role that fox hunting plays in the control of pests. The Ministry of Defence, no less, has said with regard to my own hunt, the Royal Artillery, that it believes that hunting with hounds is one of the means by which foxes can be controlled on Salisbury plain.
There is an interesting case study: in the 1980s, fox hunting was banned on one part of Salisbury plain—the impact area—because people were worried about riders and hounds blowing themselves up on the unexploded bombs. Within a couple of years, farmers got together and petitioned the Ministry of Defence to overturn that ban because the depredations on lambs, chickens and calves in the surrounding area were so great.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), among others, alluded to the disposal of animal carcases. There is no way in which the knackerman could replace the services provided by the hunts in the removal of fallen stock. Interventions from one or two Labour Members indicated that they have no idea about the scale of the problem facing farming at the moment, the number of carcases that are becoming available and the fact that the knackering industry could not possibly replace the service provided by hunts.
A recent circular from none other than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told farmers that they must not dispose of the carcases on the farm if they can possibly avoid doing so and, the problems understandingthat farmers are having, suggested that they should get in touch with their local hunts and request them to take away the carcases.

Dr. Julian Lewis: There is an analogous problem in the New forest. The ponies graze on the forest and the hunt removes the fallen stock. We have no idea how that task would be performed without the hunt.

Mr. Gray: That is, of course, right. The Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association has only 120 knackers' yards in the United Kingdom, whereas something like 200 to 300 boners are operated by the hunts which supply the service. The Meat and Livestock Commission has estimated that without the service that the hunts provide, the agriculture industry would have to pay an additional £36 million a year which, of course, it can ill afford.
There are a number of important environmental points on this issue. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) laughingly said that she could not see why, if hunting was so beneficial to the landscape of rural England, foxes were turning up in her garden. She misunderstood the point. The reason why the landscape of an area such as north Wiltshire has been changed over the centuries by fox hunting is nothing to do with the habitat of foxes. Of course foxes can live anywhere—they could live in a dustbin, come to that. The point is that as the farmers allow the hunt to cross their land, the land is preserved for hunting. It would otherwise be used for all sort of things, such as housing, which she might view with more approval. Her intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) showed the depth of her ignorance about the points that we are making.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has, not for the first time, misunderstood the point made by Labour Members. I was refuting the argument that hunting, of itself, created a beneficial natural environment which promoted the well-being of the fox population. My question was, if that was the case, why were foxes leaving the countryside in increasing numbers?

Mr. Gray: Once again, the hon. Lady shows that she knows nothing about the matter. The suggestion that foxes are leaving the countryside in increasing numbers is laughable.

Mr. Livingstone: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 0.

Division No. 155]
[2.15 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Austin, John
Lepper, David


Baker, Norman
Levitt, Tom


Banks, Tony
Linton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
McDonnell, John


Berry, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Best, Harold
Mackinlay, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
McWalter, Tony


Casale, Roger
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Cawsey, Ian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Miller, Andrew


Clwyd, Ann
Morley, Elliot


Coaker, Vernon
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Colman, Tony
Pike, Peter L


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pond, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Pope, Greg


Darvill, Keith
Prosser, Gwyn


Dean, Mrs Janet
Rammell, Bill


Dismore, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Salter, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Sedgemore, Brian


Dowd, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Drown, Ms Julia
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Efford, Clive
Stunell, Andrew


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Touhig, Don


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Gardiner, Barry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Gerrard, Neil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Winnick, David


Grogan, John
Wood, Mike


Harris, Dr Evan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Hill, Keith



Hopkins, Kelvin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mr. Ian Stewart and


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mr. David Taylor.




NOES


Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. James Gray and


Mr. David Maclean.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of Question).

Mr. Gray: I was rather embarrassed by the fact that we did not earlier have sufficient people present to prevent the opening of the debate on fox hunting, so I am more than delighted that only 74 Labour Members turned up to vote for the closure motion. That has allowed the debate to continue. Many Opposition Members who feel strongly about these issues have not had an opportunity to speak. I am glad that the debate will continue.
The next time Labour Members say that the Labour party is overwhelmingly opposed to fox hunting, they should remember that, because only 74 of them turned up, this Bill will not, as I very much hoped it would not, go through.

Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend runs out of time in this important debate, would he care to comment more on the charade that has taken this place today? By using a parliamentary tactic, Labour Members prevented discussion of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but not even 100 of them were present to take this Bill seriously.

Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall not try to outdo him on it. However, it was an absurdity.

Mr. Leigh: The fact is that Labour Members' hatred of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is greater than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going well outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Gray: I would like to continue in the tone of even-handed, intelligent and careful thought with which I started my contribution.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: In one moment perhaps.
The entire debate about fox hunting has achieved levels of passion on both sides that are extremely unhelpful. It should be a quiet and sensible debate about agriculture and the benefits to the countryside.
We have heard about the many people who would lose their jobs if hunting with dogs were banned, and that might apply in my constituency more than any other. Many people there work in, support and take part in hunting. Supporters of the Bill have failed to consider the people who look after the horses that are used in fox hunting. I am chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee, and about 40,000 horses are kept exclusively for the purpose of fox hunting. Many of them—they are medium-quality horses—would have to be destroyed alongside the 27,000 foxhounds that would be put down. Many more hounds would have to be put down as a result of a ban on fox hunting than the 16,000 foxes that are killed in any one year.
As to the Minister's suggestion that shooting and fishing would not be affected, the RSPCA has made it plain that it thinks that fox hunting, shooting and fishing should be banned. It has also made it plain that it believes that intensive farming should be banned. That devalues the evidence given by the RSPCA, which simply believes in banning anything to do with the countryside. It certainly devalues the Minister's comment that fishing and shooting would not be banned as a result of the Bill. That is the logical consequence, and the RSPCA shows exactly how such people think. It believes that anything to do with killing animals in any shape, size or form—and that includes intensive farming in the countryside—should be banned. That is a disgrace.
A ban on hunting with dogs would be a disaster for the rural economy; it would be a disaster for the environment and the countryside such as that in my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

It being half—past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 April.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

EXPORT OF FARM ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.

FIRE PREVENTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

MARINE WILDLIFE PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.

SCHOOL CROSSINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RETAIL PACKAGING RECYCLING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 April.

CENSUS (AMMENDMENT) BILL [(LORDS)]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

Live Animal Exports

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I am pleased that my Bill to ban live animal exports lives to fight another day and to have a Second Reading, but in the meantime I should like to take the opportunity to rehearse the arguments for banning the export of live animals.
The election year of 1997 was not only a good year for the British people and the Labour party; it was a good year for British sheep. Fewer sheep were exported from our shores in that special year than in any other year in the decade. Even in 1997, however, more than 270,000 lambs and sheep were forced to endure the rigours of crossing the English channel and were exposed to further suffering on extended journeys across Europe—a suffering that often ends in slow, painful death at the hands of untrained and inept slaughtermen.
Since then, the number of exported sheep has risen dramatically, and figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food show that in 1999 the number of lambs and sheep exported for slaughter topped the 1 million mark, with more than 1.1 million being exported. That means that the inhumane trade has more than doubled in the past couple of years.
Before I came to the House, I was a merchant navy officer, and when I was sailing on deep sea vessels I regularly witnessed the live animal ships discharging their miserable cargoes in Middle East ports. I have seen the injured and dying animals being dragged off the vessels with hooks and whole holdfuls of dead sheep being winched ashore in cargo nets. More recently, when I sailed on the Irish sea and the Dover cross-channel ferries, I saw the awful image of broken limbs protruding from animal trucks. In bad weather, I heard the cries and even smelt the fear of those wretched animals close up.
Those are some of the reasons why I want the UK to prohibit the export of live farm animals. A trade that regularly inflicts great suffering on living creatures has no legitimate part to play in a civilised and caring society, and it certainly has no part to play in the new fairer Britain that the Labour Government have set about building.
Today's animal exports, typically, are first sent to Belgium and Holland and, 24 hours later, re-exported to southern Europe. Many are trucked on appallingly long journeys to Italy, Greece and Spain, where they are killed in abattoirs using cruel and illegal slaughter methods. The journey to Italy can take 40 hours or more, and up to 100 hours to Greece.
Compassion in World Farming investigators have seen the state of the animals once they reach southern Europe. Many are exhausted and dehydrated, some are injured, and others have collapsed on the floor of the truck, where they have been trampled on by their companions. Yet others stick their heads out through the truck's ventilation slats, desperately panting and gasping for air. Their plight is due to overcrowding, the extreme heat in summer, the lack of water and proper ventilation on many trucks, and the sheer length of the journey.
In the worst cases, large numbers of animals die. Last August British sheep were left in the port of Bari in southern Italy for 48 hours, waiting for a ship to Greece.


They were kept in the trucks in blistering heat without any water. After repeated pleas from Compassion in World Farming, the Italian authorities at last relented and opened up the trucks, but by then many animals were already dead and many were gasping their last breaths. Those of us who have seen film of that will never forget it. Over the next few days, more animals perished. In all, 115 British lambs and 45 French sheep died in that disaster.
As long ago as 1993, a European Commission report concluded that
long distance transport in overstocked vehicles, combined with dehydration and starvation, results in very poor welfare and often in high mortality.
All the evidence shows that that remains the case, and there are extensive documentation and numerous directives supporting that simple link.
On this side of the channel, the exporters Farmers Ferry told me that they exercise the highest standards of animal welfare. That claim is derided by Kent Against Live Animal Exports, the local protest group, whose observers keep a close watch on port activities from the white cliffs of Dover.
The exporters' claims of high standards are hardly borne out by the Ministry's figures, which show that in the last seven months of last year, a massive figure of 12,558 sheep transported to Dover docks and destined for export were rejected by the local veterinary inspectors as unfit to travel. Some were already dead on arrival. It is a scandal that the exporters, who claim to have such high animal welfare standards, try to send so many unfit animals for export.
The problems are not confined to the long journeys. Equally disturbing are the slaughter conditions awaiting the animals at their journey's end. Last year Compassion in World Farming investigators visited three Greek sheep abattoirs. Two were making no attempt at all to stun the animals, which is not only cruel, but illegal under EU law. The third was stunning the animals, but so ineptly that they regained consciousness before having their throats cut.
Recently we witnessed one of the worst aspects of this wretched trade. Each year thousands of British sheep are exported to France for outdoor ritual slaughter during the Eid El Kabir festival. The animals are slaughtered without stunning, in the open air. They are held down on the ground and their throats are crudely cut while they are fully conscious. They are often left to bleed to death in agony. It is clear from the filmed evidence that the slaughtermen are untrained. They are seen hacking away at the sheep's throat with blunt knives, and the animals are seen writhing in their death agonies for several minutes before they eventually succumb.
Under both EU and French law, ritual slaughter must be carried out in abattoirs. The activities in the killing fields of Paris are expressly prohibited. However, neither the European Commission nor the French authorities take any meaningful action against these illegal acts. I urge the Government to make further and stronger representations on these matters.
All the suffering and cruelty inherent in the live export trade is unnecessary. Transporting animals hundreds of miles to slaughter is not a necessary part of the process of feeding ourselves. Most of the animals exported from

Britain will be slaughtered on arrival at their destination or shortly afterwards. It is senseless to subject animals to the misery of long journeys, only to slaughter them at journey's end. Animals should be sent to slaughterhouses as near as possible to the farm of rearing, and all our exports should be in meat form. Many respected organisations have echoed this approach.
With all the evidence clearly linking long journeys to bad animal welfare, it is disappointing that we still allow companies to ship live sheep from places such as the Gower peninsula to places such as the Greek islands. When will our Government begin to translate their warm words into concrete commitment and actively encourage the principle of slaughtering near to the farm of rearing, and transporting the product as meat?
A marvellous opportunity has arisen. The European Union transport directive was due for review at the end of last year. It must not lead to the EU simply tinkering at the margins of the problem, with some journeys becoming a little shorter and many becoming longer. That happened after the previous review in 1995. The EU must adopt a major change of policy whereby the long—distance transport of live farm animals is abandoned and replaced by a trade in carcases. I urge the Government to take a vigorous lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt that fundamental policy change, which will spare farm animals much suffering and will be so welcome to the public.
In the meantime, until this cruel trade is ended, EU transport directives must be much more rigorously enforced. Last year, the European Commission published five reports, which showed that EU laws that were designed to give animals at least some protection during transport are widely ignored in France, Greece, Italy, Belgium and Ireland. Compassion in World Farming has produced an excellent paper, which it has sent to the Minister. It shows how the enforcement of the directive could be improved. I urge the Government to take a lead in persuading our EU partners to adopt those practical and sensible suggestions.
I am disappointed that the Government have not succeeded in reducing the volume of live exports. I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's often-repeated statement that he would prefer United Kingdom exports to be in meat form rather than live animals. None the less such statements have had little effect; live exports have more than doubled in the past two years, since our Government have been in office.
The time has come for new initiatives from the Government. First, they should urge farmers' leaders to join them in working out the details of a phased voluntary withdrawal from the live export trade. The Government should remind sheep farmers that they receive huge subsidies from the public purse and that in return for that financial aid, taxpayers are entitled to expect farmers to respond to public anxieties by pulling out of an inhumane trade.
Secondly, the Government should seek a derogation from EU rules to ban live animal exports, in the same way as the previous Government gained a derogation for horses and ponies. Thirdly, they should take the lead in persuading the EU to replace the long—distance transport of live animals with the meat trade.
Fourthly, the Government should urgently effect their warmly received 1997 decision to remove exporters' rights to select and pay for the services of local veterinary


inspectors. That is essential to demonstrate the inspectors' independence. We have waited nearly three years for its introduction.
The Government have resisted my past calls on behalf of animal welfare groups for a ban on live animal exports on the grounds that it would breach EU rules on free movement of goods. However, last year, a legally binding EU protocol on animal welfare came into force which recognises animals as sentient beings. It can therefore be argued that animals are no longer subject to EU rules on the free movement of goods. Many people believe that the Government should use that argument to justify a ban on live exports. The case should at least be tested.
The protocol also requires the EU and member states when formulating policy on agriculture to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. Allowing a trade that routinely inflicts great suffering to continue unchecked neither fulfils that legal duty nor responds to animals' status as sentient beings.
More than 80 per cent. of British people want an end to the trade. The established ferry companies have stopped taking it and the ports do not want to handle it. Ministers have expressed a clear preference for meat to be transported on the hook rather than on the hoof. I therefore strongly urge the Government vigorously to promote the welfare of animals in transit immediately and bring about a total ban on the cruel and unnecessary trade in the longer term.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on obtaining the debate. I hope that it is a small consolation for his not yet having had an opportunity to discuss his private Member's Bill. I recognise the sincerity of his comments on live exports. He has been a strong campaigner and has reflected the views not only of many his constituents but of a great many people in this country generally, including livestock farmers who are concerned about live exports for slaughter.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government have made their position clear on a number of occasions. Our preference is for meat exports, not live animal exports, which is right not only for the welfare of the animals, but for the added value to meat exports, for jobs in our country, for the economy and for our meat and slaughter industry. Exporting live animals also means exporting jobs and that should not be forgotten in terms of the rural economy and the issues that the Government are trying to address. It is also worth pointing out that live exports represent only about 5 per cent. of lamb exports. The vast majority are meat, so the argument about the overall economic impact of live exports is strong and it would surely be preferable to maximise meat exports. Much more attention should be paid to them rather than to live exports.
The Government welcome farmers coming together in marketing groups and support their co-operative ventures. Farmers have come together to establish their own ferry service for exporting lamb to the continent, which is a good principle, and I am encouraged that, according to recent reports, the Farmers Ferry board is investigating the use of the ferry for meat as well as live exports. It

should be just as easy for a facility that can handle livestock transporters and all the problems that go with them to take refrigerated vehicles carrying meat for export and we hope that the investigation will develop.
Many people in the livestock sector accept that there is a strong reaction to live exports. They are looking for the best return for their business and their products and we understand that, which is why we want to explain certain issues relating to meat exports. I have had talks with the National Sheep Association about the potential for meat export opportunities and we also know that companies are considering the establishment of ethical veal production in this country and the export of meat to the continent. The calf export trade has been halted and there is no prospect of it being restarted in the immediate future.
We accept that there are problems with long-distance live exports. There is also abuse on some occasions, particularly on the continent when animals exported from this country go to their legal destinations in France, Belgium or Holland and are sold on, loaded on to other vehicles and transported again. They are completely outside United Kingdom control. Monitoring depends very much on the member states responsible, and the Commission is responsible for enforcement. We have been scrupulous in our inspections and have tightened the procedures. We have also tried to be open and transparent. For example, the Departments website gives information about the number of animals going through Dover and the number rejected by our inspectors there. We must bear in mind that the primary inspection is carried out by the local veterinary inspector when the animals set off. There is a second inspection at Dover, which the Ministry established to make sure that there was no obvious problem with animals going through.
We take firm action within the law in relation to live animal exports and I understand my hon. Friend's case for changing the law to stop them completely, but we cannot do that at present. The European Court has established that live exports are part of the single market. Therefore, they are legal. We do not have the power to stop them, but we do have power to regulate and inspect them. We can ensure that journey plans are enforced, and that the animals are in good condition and are inspected properly—and we do that. We refuse to authorise long-distance journey plans in the summer when the ambient temperatures of the countries that the animals will pass through present a risk to their well-being. We also refuse to approve journey plans if we are not satisfied that there are proper facilities to cater and to care for the animals at their destination.

Sir Richard Body: The United Kingdom Government have not yet invoked article 36 of the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Morley: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman has a good record on animal welfare issues. Article 36 is now article 30, and has been changed slightly. We have considered using article 36, but our legal advice is that we cannot do so on live exports. One of the cases taken to the European Court by Compassion in World Farming was based on article 36. It argued that we could stop the export of calves, which were going into systems that were illegal in this country. The European Court ruled that we could not, so we have a clear court ruling on that.
It is interesting that some Conservative Members who are arguing that we should use article 36 to stop pig imports argued against using article 36 to stop calf exports. That is an inconsistent position.
My hon. Friend gave two appalling examples of the abuse that occurs with long-distance transport. In the Bari case animals were being transported to Greece but were held up in Italy waiting for the ferry in the summer heat. The suffering of those animals must have been intense, and many of them died. Although they may have included some British sheep, the journey plan had not been authorised in the United Kingdom, and it would not have been authorised at that time of year. The sheep were sold legally and the company abided by the law, but they were sold on to another company who transported them to Ban and did not comply with EU law. We certainly need to address that problem.
There is also the issue of the appalling slaughter of animals for Eid El Kabir. If I were a French Minister, I would be ashamed to be associated with what has been going on. We have made representations to the French authorities. Although they have said that they recognise the problem and are taking steps to deal with it, I am sorry that, to say that it does not appear from the video evidence I have seen recently that much has been done to improve the situation.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently written to Commissioner Byrne to say that the regulation of standards is a European issue and should be properly enforced. Many hundreds of people from this country have written to the Commission and to the French authorities expressing their concern.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have a Muslim population. I am glad to say that we have sat round the table with Muslim organisations to talk about such problems. Through discussion and with the support and co-operation of Muslim organisations in the UK, we have made it illegal to carry out any religious slaughter that does not involve a proper slaughterhouse and a licensed slaughterman. I am sorry that the French have not done the same. I hope that they do so.
My hon. Friend talked about translating warm words into action. I understand his frustration, because he has campaigned on this issue for so long and with such sincerity on behalf of the many people concerned about the export of live animals. It is not easy for the Government, because we must abide by the law and work within the legal system. We are doing what we can to translate our preferences into action. For example, a brand-new slaughterhouse is being built in Wales. That will be important to the sheep market, and to Welsh sheep producers. The Government are supporting it with structural grants.
We are reviewing the transport regulations. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current European Union-wide review of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 gives us an opportunity to address ourselves to some of

the problems and abuses. It is perfectly legitimate for us to consider, for instance, why it is necessary to transport live animals over such long distances, whether the system can be properly enforced, and whether the enforcement is being properly applied or needs to be tightened in certain respects. Incidentally, we are conducting our own national review of the order.
I can give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking that we will look carefully at the Compassion in World Farming paper, which proposes ways in which the situation can be improved. Compassion in World Farming has made a number of suggestions to the Government on a range of issues. Its proposals for improvements in animal welfare are often sensible, reasonable and well argued, and we shall take its current proposals seriously. It should be borne in mind that we start from the premise that meat exports are far preferable to live exports, from the point of view of the livestock sector as well as the welfare point of view.
My hon. Friend mentioned local veterinary inspectors, who are currently appointed by the exporters. We propose that they should be appointed by MAFF. It is part of a two-stage change, stage one of which has been implemented. Stage one involved our establishing minimum benchmark standards for all local veterinary inspectors involving, for instance, the time that they spend on inspections that they conduct on the Ministry's behalf. We have consulted on the appointment of inspectors by MAFF; we have received a response, and are now involved in the final stage of the process, which consists of consulting the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Following devolution, we must obtain their opinions. We await their response, and I hope that we can make a decision as quickly as possible.
There is no controversy about standards. Those on all sides of the argument—exporters, the livestock sector, welfare organisations and the public—want the best standards to operate and to be enforced, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. There are international questions about, for example, the import of horses to the EU from eastern European states: many people are concerned about that, and have written to us. There are also failings in our system that should be addressed in the EU.
I am not complacent, but I think that the Government have taken the issue of live exports very seriously. We have made many improvements. It is true, however, that we need to do more, not only in the United Kingdom but in the EU, to bring about the enforcement that has been lacking in Europe. I know that many Members, not least my hon. Friend, will carefully scrutinise what the Government do, and will press the Ministry to ensure that we introduce changes that will be important not just to animal welfare and the people whom we represent, but to the livestock industry and its reputation. I am sure that the industry will wish to join us in our attempts to improve the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.